Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and declare my interests as a member of the GMC board and as president of GS1, the barcoding organisation responsible for the Scan4Safety programme. The Bill is of great importance for patient safety, but also for the health of the life sciences sector, yet it is striking for its brevity and, as the Minister acknowledged, for the extensive powers given to Ministers without the exceptional justification required for the skeleton approach taken. The Minister said he was listening, but he will know that both the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee were highly critical, and I believe there is a strong argument for the Bill’s powers in relation to medicine and medical devices regulation to be subject to sunset clauses.

Leaving the EU’s regulatory regime brings significant risks that companies will choose somewhere other than the UK to trial and launch medicines. At the moment we are nowhere near knowing whether our new regulatory system is to be aligned with the rest of Europe—the policy statement published yesterday by MHRA on devices and clinical trials regulation from 1 January 2021 is silent on this. I have to say to the Minister that I am not impressed that his department thinks it is acceptable for such a publication to be produced hours before our Second Reading debate. There is certainly no room for complacency. The European Medicines Agency covers 25% of global pharmaceutical sales; the UK on its own makes up just 3%. The odds are that companies will want to submit applications for new drugs to the EMA before the MHRA, meaning that the UK will lose its advantage and UK patients will risk getting slower access to the latest medicines.

As Sarepta pointed out to me, for many companies the attractiveness referred to in the Bill equates to speed of decision-making at every stage. That means being able to approve clinical trials faster than in the EU, maintaining swift decision-making on medicines approvals and getting approved medicines to patients faster. Yet the Minister will know that the NHS record in uptake of new medicines is very poor indeed, and I would like to hear from him what is going to be done to improve access for NHS patients to these new medicines.

On patient safety, Ministers are silent on whether they will accept many of the recommendations of the Cumberlege review. In particular, will the Minister support the appointment of a commissioner for patient safety, which the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, argued for very persuasively in her report?

Finally, I turn to the abhorrent practice of forced organ harvesting taking place in China today, and to the importance of ensuring that the UK is not in any way complicit in these crimes. In a letter to me last night, the Minister referred to the World Health Organization’s view that China is implementing an ethical voluntary organ transplant system. That is simply not credible, and in fact it is based on a self-assessment by China itself. A much more objective assessment comes from the China Tribunal, which concluded:

“Forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale.”


At the moment, human tissue and organs can be imported into the UK from countries such as China without traceability, documentation or consent. Marie Rimmer MP tabled an amendment in the Commons to deal with this. A similar amendment will be tabled here and I very much hope that the Government will agree to it.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 19th October 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]]

My Lords, given that we are in Committee, I will not be making lengthy speeches, but I will raise what I think are the key issues in each of the groups. The amendments to the Bill relate to some of the constitutional issues. As a general rule, noble Lords do not much care for delegated powers because it is not considered good practice or procedure to give a Secretary of State carte blanche in any area. There are some areas in this Bill where the Secretary of State is being given powers that we would rather that he or she did not have.

As the Bill is skeletal and consists mostly of delegated powers, it is important and a good idea to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to set an end date on these, so sunset powers are being proposed. The noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Kakkar, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, have requested the Secretary of State to publish draft legislation to consolidate the legislation relating to human and veterinary medicine within three years of the Bill being enacted.

My noble friend Lord Sharkey and I have put our names to several amendments in this group. My noble friend calls for the super-affirmative procedure so that all powers given in the Bill will elapse after three years. I confess that this is the first time that I have seen that being used. The super-affirmative procedure involves an additional stage of scrutiny where Parliament considers a proposal for a statutory instrument before it is formally laid. This procedure is used for those instruments that are considered to need a particularly high level of scrutiny, which I think is certainly the case with this Bill.

Some of the amendments call for consolidation within three years, but in general what we are saying to the Minister is that there are not enough checks and balances. Please use the time between now and Report stage to look again, speak to Members of the Committee and bring forward government amendments—otherwise, I suspect that we may be voting on Report.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 1 and 140 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton. As we are at the start of the Committee stage, perhaps I may remind the House of my membership of the board of the General Medical Council and my role as president of GS1 and the Health Care Supply Association.

I agree with my noble friend Lady Thornton about the clash between the first day of the Committee stage of this Bill and the Second Reading of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill in the main Chamber. Today we are dealing with some of the most important debates in the whole Bill and when we come back on Report there will be a need to give more time to allow those people who could not be present today to make a full contribution to these debates. I hope that the usual channels will take that away. I am not quite sure about the procedure in these unusual circumstances, but in normal times I would have asked that the Committee stage procedure be used for these introductory debates on Report in order to allow for interventions. However, since interventions are now limited, that may not run well, although I think that noble Lords will understand what I am getting at.

This is an important Bill on patient safety and the health of our life sciences sector. It is striking in its brevity and in the extensive powers to be given to Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, has spelled out the wide range of delegated powers contained in the Bill, while a pungent analysis by my local university, the University of Birmingham, points out that, while delegated powers may be needed to ensure responsiveness in the EU exit transition period and to meet the challenges of technological change, they should not be used indefinitely or relied on to implement matters of policy. I am not going to repeat what the Delegated Powers Committee or the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution have said, but it is rare for two Select Committees to comment at the same time and in such a critical way about the skeletal nature of a Bill. It is to be hoped that the Government will listen carefully to what is being said.

At Second Reading, the Minister suggested that the sunset clause as proposed by my noble friend would emasculate legislation

“meant to give regulators the powers to be effective and to future-proof medical regulation in a fast-changing industry for many years to come. We must understand the impact on an industry that needs regulatory certainty or else, as many noble Lords have noted, will move elsewhere.”—[Official Report, 2/9/20; col. 433.]

I have to say to the Minister that most of the regulatory uncertainty has been caused by the Government’s failure to be clear about what regulatory regime they want for medicines and medical devices. They have now had four years to think about this and we are still nowhere near knowing what regulatory system they want to put in place. Are they going to go for alignment with the European Medicines Agency or do they want to strike out on their own? Do they want to ally with the US FDA? What on earth are the Government’s aims? The industry is at risk because of this huge uncertainty. The idea that we should allow the Government willy-nilly to get this Bill through and make whatever changes they want without the House treating it as primary legislation simply will not wash. I am absolutely convinced that the long-term regulatory system must be subject to detailed primary legislation. As far as I can see, the amendment to bring in a sunset clause is probably the most appropriate vehicle to ensure that that happens.

[Lord Kakkar (CB) [V]]

My Lords, in contributing to the first day in Committee on this Bill, I draw the attention of noble Lords to my registered interests, in particular to those as a professor of surgery at University College London and as the chairman of UCLPartners.

I support Amendments 50, 67 and 115 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Patel, to which I have added my name. The point has been well made by my noble friend that the ecosystem for the delivery of healthcare in our country and therefore the use of medicinal products, medical devices and veterinary medicines is a complex one that is attended by substantial legislation, much of which has been brought into force as a result of the European Communities Act 1972. It is therefore absolutely right, to echo a point made previously by the Minister, that there is a need for this Bill to ensure that such regulation can continue, so that we can continue to have a safe and effective healthcare system and take advantage of the essential requirement to avail ourselves of medicinal products and medical devices.

There is surely also an absolute obligation to ensure that regulation should avoid adding to the complexity that already exists. For those who have to labour under these regulations and ensure that they can present innovation and advances to benefit our fellow citizens within the context of the regulations, we should always be working to simplify them.

In this regard, we are all conscious of the fact that many different types of regulations touch on the healthcare system. There are those that pertain to ethics, and those that deal with the function and delivery of ethics committees and the evaluation of intervention at a local and national level. We have regulations that deal with the adoption and evaluation of innovation within the context of the MHRA, and with the evaluation of intervention and innovation pertaining to NICE. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about the medical device regulations enacted in 2002, which codify and implement various EU directives in this matter, and the substantial amendment attending medical device regulations in terms of the legislation passed as part of EU exit regulations in 2019.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Woolf (CB) [V]]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for setting out the position we are in with such clarity. I will add just a few words to explain my involvement. It has already been pointed out that not many of my legal friends who I would expect to be concerned about this are present in Committee today. I am sure that the ones who one thinks of are busily engaged in the Chamber over a different piece of legislation which is causing them greater concern than the proposal here, although I believe that they would not disagree with my comments.

In this House, we naturally think as parliamentarians and are concerned about our process of scrutinising legislation, but bad legislation all too frequently ends up not being disputed in this House. That is not the end of the matter, however: the difficulties it creates then have subsequently to be sorted out, which is frequently done by judicial review in the courts. What the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has said so well is very relevant to judicial review, and that is an area where I feel that, just as the doctors can comment about this Bill with a certain background of knowledge, I should refer to my entries in the register, which, at least with regard to judicial review, are quite important.

If the courts are to provide scrutiny at a later stage, they must know the purpose of the legislation. That is why what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has already said is so important. With blank cheques, the danger is that they can be used for all sorts of purposes. I have been trying, under the leadership of the noble Lord, to ensure that the blank cheques given by this legislation are as restricted as they can practically be, bearing in mind the situation in which we find ourselves.

I agree with what the noble Lord said about the amendments with regard to the present proposals. On the one hand, there is the proposal put forward by the Government; on the other is the proposal that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I have suggested might be appropriate. My view, for the reason he indicated, is that our proposal is better, but, above all, I am attracted by the fact that what the Government are proposing is much better than what was there before. On that basis, with a degree of reluctance, I would be capable of being persuaded that we should accept what the Government offer, whereas I am quite satisfied that we should not have accepted what was there before.

Leaving the matter in that way, I hope that the further discussion which will no doubt take place will enable agreement to be reached on an amendment which achieves what is needed for the purposes I have indicated.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am glad that the Minister said that he was listening, and his amendments are important, particularly the one that makes the principle of the health and safety of the public the key consideration when making regulations under the parts of the Bill relating to human medicines and medical devices. He will be aware that concern was expressed by patient groups, in particular, about the Bill as originally drafted and the implication of the attractiveness provision. That concern takes us back to our first debate on “whither regulation in future”.

If we are not going to be aligned to the European Medicines Agency and are to plough it alone, the UK pharma industry will be at a huge disadvantage unless the Government offer an incentive. It may be a bung—the debate about state aid is very relevant to that—or much faster regulation. Otherwise, it is very difficult to see why the industry would continue to invest in R&D in this country. Its position could be as vulnerable as is the motor car industry as a result of the bumbling ineptitude of the Government in their Brexit so-called negotiation.

It is not far-fetched, it is a legitimate question to ask what on earth the Government really want from medicines and medical devices regulation. They may have issued all sorts of draft regulations, but we are clueless about what they are actually seeking to do. The MHRA is clearly not allowed to talk to anybody about this. I remember when the MHRA would talk to politicians and debate these things. It has clearly been given an instruction not to talk to anyone. We are absolutely clueless about the future direction of regulation. None the less, the amendments are clearly helpful, and no doubt we will consider them between Committee and Report.

I would, however, like to ask the Minister about Amendment 2 and its relevance to Northern Ireland. I understand that, exceptionally, it will be moved in Grand Committee because legislative consent takes three months to get through, which impacts on the Bill’s process. I understand that, but, as Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill affect Northern Ireland, does that similarly affect any amendment to Part 1 or 2 passed on Report? What is then the impact on Northern Ireland legislation?

Overall, however, most of the amendments are a constructive improvement, but we will obviously consider them further between now and Report.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, we must consider the whole Bill as building the foundations for the future of the medicines and pharmaceutical industry in this country. We do so in the knowledge that we have had a perhaps pre-eminent role in the world in pharmaceutical development because of the coming together of a number of factors—the European medicines regulations and all the conventions to which we are party, plus the existence of the NHS and the potential it offers for clinical research and our long tradition of working in the life sciences and biosciences sector.

The Minister definitely listened at Second Reading to the many voices of concern that perceived the Bill as it came to us as a weakening of the many factors that underpin our success in this area. He understood entirely, I think, that if we were to take away the pre-eminence of the health and safety of the industry, we would fatally undermine the whole basis of the construction of this very important sector for our economy.

The Minister has listened but not quite hard enough. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that Amendment 2 is an improvement, but it still leaves the decision-making on whether something promotes health and safety to the Secretary of State. I much prefer the construction in Amendment 5, to which my noble friend Lady Jolly has added her name.

My main concern in this group is with Amendment 51 on regulation for veterinary medicines. In his introduction, the Minister pointed to the fact that medicines for animals can work back into the food chain and to humans. I understand the interplay between taking into account things that are done to improve human well-being, animal well-being and the environment, but he will understand that, when people see the amendments, it will not be immediately apparent to them that human welfare is pre-eminent in the list. It says that the regulations must promote “one or more” of the three. I agree that the Minister has moved on the first set of amendments, but he has not gone anywhere near far enough on the regulations on veterinary medicines, so we may well need to come back to that at a later stage.

--- Later in debate ---

The stakes are very high. Innovation will demonstrate the UK’s leadership role. The MHRA is a world-leading national regulatory body. While it will no longer have a seat at the table within the EU after the end of the transition period, introducing innovative ways of working to enhance our existing risk-based approach to trials regulation will allow the MHRA to continue to be influential in the development of regulatory policy around the world. Maintaining alignment with pharmacovigilance standards will also help the UK to maintain influence at an international level. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the two amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton. I have also put my name to Amendment 22 from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—she is currently in the internal markets Bill Second Reading debate—which links this to a definition of attractiveness, and to Amendment 39 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, which focuses on clinical trials for rare diseases and the importance of alignment with the European Medicines Agency.

At the end of this debate, I hope we will have a better idea of the Government’s approach to the regulation of medicines and medical devices. I do not want to repeat myself, but, as my noble friend said, the big question seems to be that at the moment the EMA covers 25% of global pharmaceutical sales and the UK on its own makes up 3%. We know that the NHS is a very poor customer in terms of adopting new medicines. The UK market is pretty hopeless for pharma. If we are not going to be aligned to the EMA, what will this mean for UK pharma in terms of future investment? My guess is that it will snap off that investment.

This is the big issue, which we do not yet understand. What is the Government’s aim? Is it the idea that a no-deal Brexit is a good thing and UK pharma will survive with a hopeless home market and all the problems of dealing with Europe? Countries will clearly not come to the UK first when they have the EMA next door, unless we offer fast-track licensing, which brings us back to patient safety, which is why the two link so much together.

I hope that this time the Minister will give us some idea of what the Government are aiming for. The same applies to medical devices, although there are some specific opportunities, because at the moment the MHRA has no involvement in the pre-market phase of medical device development. Is the intention that the UK develops a proactive regulatory role for devices that is more akin to the licensing of medicines? If so, what will be the implications for industry and patient safety? Clearly, there have been many issues about medical devices in the past which have not gone through such a robust regulatory regime. Is it the intention that the UK goes through a more extensive regime in the future under its own steam? What will the general implications be?

Again, we know that Covid-19 is having an impact on clinical trials, a significant number of which have been paused. It is my understanding that only 45% of studies are currently open to recruitment and only 36% of them have successfully recruited patients since 1 June. The ABHI has highlighted the need for a sustainable plan and aims to return clinical research to pre-pandemic levels by spring next year.

This is important because, despite the size and growth of the global market for clinical research, the UK’s share of clinical trial applications and patient recruits has fallen since 2016. The UK is now falling behind the US, Germany and Spain for phase 3 commercial clinical trials. What is to be done about that? What is the Government’s approach? Again, how does this relate to the future regulation of clinical trials?

I hope that the Government’s intention is to stimulate the UK’s clinical research environment, but part of that must be enabling multi-state UK-EU trials to continue. The idea that we can have multi-state trials that do not involve some agreement with the EU seems fanciful in the extreme. Again, at this stage, we are entitled to know from the Government exactly what they intend.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey.

--- Later in debate ---

4: Page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“( ) The power under subsection (1) may not be exercised to—
(a) create a criminal offence of failing to comply with a provision made in regulations; or
(b) modify penalties for existing criminal offences.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment would remove provisions for criminal offences to be created by delegated legislation. The DPRRC considered this an inappropriate delegation of power.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I have added my name to Amendments 4, 52 and 69, which would remove the provision for criminal offences to be created by delegated legislation.

The Government are developing a reputation for riding roughshod over the law, personal liberties and the role of lawyers. Indeed, the Internal Market Bill, debate on which is taking place in the Chamber today, is a reflection of that.

I am afraid that this Bill continues that trend, as indicated by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its very direct criticism of the criminal offence provisions. The committee drew attention to provisions in the Bill which give Ministers powers to create and modify imprisonable offences by statutory instrument. Thus regulations under Clauses 1 and 8 may create a criminal offence of failing to comply with provision made in such regulations that is punishable by imprisonment up to two years. Regulations under Clauses 1 and 8 may also amend the dozens of offence-creating provisions in the existing regulations. Regulations under Clause 12 may create new criminal offences relating to medical devices that are punishable by imprisonment for up to one year. Schedule 2 inserts a new regulation 60A and a new schedule into the 2002 regulations which make it a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment for up to one year, to breach any of the provisions in the 2002 regulations that are listed in the new schedule. It goes on: Clause 14(1)(d) provides that regulations under Clause 12 may amend the new Schedule 30.

The powers conferred in all these provisions give rise to two concerns. As the Select Committee reported, it has previously expressed the view that it expects a compelling justification for the ingredients of a criminal offence to be set by delegated legislation. The powers in Clauses 1, 8 and 12 would allow Ministers to create completely new criminal offences and make changes to the ingredients of existing offences, yet the memorandum does not appear to contain any justification at all for this. The committee also points out that it has also said that where the penalty for a criminal offence may be set by delegated legislation, it would expect the maximum penalty to be included in the Bill, save in exceptional circumstances.

While the Bill limits the maximum penalty for offences created by regulations under Clauses 1 and 8, it is unclear whether this limit also applies to the many existing medicines offences which could be modified by regulations under Clause 1 or Clause 8. Again, the memorandum does not appear to shed any light on this. The Minister in his Amendments 43, 44, 64 and 65 has attempted to soften the pill by ensuring that regulations under Clause 1 (1) and Clause 8 (1) may not provide for an offence to be punishable with a sentence of more than two years. That is obviously welcome, but I do not think it goes far enough. From my reading of the amendments—no doubt we will hear about them later—they do not deal with the other substantial concern of the committee that the powers in Clauses 1, 8 and 12 would allow Ministers to create completely new criminal offences and make changes to the ingredients of existing offences. Given that, I do not think we can allow these delegated powers to be retained in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 42 and 63, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to which I added my name and to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has just alluded. I also have my name to Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Judge. Noble Lords can immediately tell that I must be the tenth reserve speaking on this important amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has laid out very clearly the problems with the government amendments that were brought in and the powers they seek.

I shall be brief on this as the Constitution Committee report spelled it out in its last line:

“The delegated powers to create and adjust criminal offences in this Bill are constitutionally unacceptable.”


It was making a constitutional point.

As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is a member of the Constitution Committee, cannot be here, I shall speak on his behalf. Paragraph 21 of the Constitution Committee’s report states:

“We have concluded previously that ‘the creation of criminal offences through delegated powers is constitutionally unacceptable’, save for exceptional circumstances. The delegated powers to create and adjust criminal offences in this Bill are constitutionally unacceptable.”


The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, went on to say that the response of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethel, that regulations cannot be used to provide for an offence to be punishable with a sentence of imprisonment of more than two years is not satisfactory. A sentence of imprisonment of up to two years is a very serious matter. Parliament, not Ministers, should decide when such a potential sentence should be available to the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)]

I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, to respond to the debate on his amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I first thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for her words in support of the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who was hoping to field an impressive cast list in this debate. I thought he did very well; I have always thought he would make a first-class lawyer—he should take that as a compliment.

At the heart of it, as he and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, this is a constitutional point: the advice we have had from a House of Lords Select Committee is that what the Government are proposing is constitutionally unacceptable. While the Minister’s amendments are always welcome, the fact remains that the Bill, after the Government’s amendments, would allow Ministers to create completely new criminal offences and make changes to existing offences. The Minister kindly explained this, but here we get to the heart of this Bill and the problem that many of us have with it. She talked about novel regulation and the need to keep pace with developments. I understand that.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 26th October 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, although I am a member of the GMC board, I am not speaking on behalf of the GMC on this group of amendments.

I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornton’s Amendment 8, which seeks to beef up the duty of the Secretary of State to make regulations under Clause 1(1) in relation to the safety and availability of human medicines and the attractiveness of the relevant part of the UK as a place to conduct clinical trials or supply human medicines. Amendment 73 does essentially the same for medical devices. As she said, the concept of attractiveness is rather vague and open to misunderstanding, which makes a statutory definition so important. I have also put my name to Amendments 74 and 75 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and will speak in support of her Amendment 12.

Apart from teasing out from the Government what attractiveness means, this is essentially an opportunity to draw out from the Minister their response to the noble Baroness’s report, First Do No Harm. The report is a stark and moving account of how thousands of patients were let down in a serious and life-changing way. I have met many of the campaigners involved and their stories were heart-rending, as she has said. I am particularly grateful to the organisation known as Sling the Mesh, whose representatives I had the pleasure of meeting. Noting that the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, is speaking later, I say that I remember, after I asked an Oral Question about mesh, that he met campaigners and talked to them for some considerable time. That was very helpful in getting across to the Government and Ministers just what damage had been done by a procedure that for many women proved to be positive and life-affirming. The awful thing is that the women who had terrible outcomes were ignored, because it was inconvenient and the operation was so successful for quite a large percentage. The system completely pooh-poohed them. Even now, under the counter, there is a lot of resistance to the noble Baroness’s recommendations.

The noble Baroness found that the healthcare system—in which she included the NHS, private providers, regulators and professional bodies, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers—was disjointed, siloed, unresponsive and defensive. That is why her core recommendation is the appointment of an independent patient safety commissioner, a person of standing who sits outside the healthcare system, accountable to Parliament through the Health and Social Care Select Committee. Obviously we are debating this later, but it would be helpful to get some sense of the Government’s response. No doubt the Minister might point to the work of Aidan Fowler, the NHS national director of patient safety, and the strategy produced under the auspices of NHS England and NHS Improvement last year. That is fine so far as it goes; it makes the point that patient safety is about maximising the things that go right and minimising the things that go wrong for people experiencing healthcare.

I commend Aidan Fowler for his efforts and commitment. Does the strategy go far enough? Does it represent a systems approach to safety where that becomes the No. 1 objective of the NHS? Does it mean that all equipment and buildings in future will be designed with safety as the first consideration? Will boards of NHS trusts treat safety as their No. 1 responsibility? Will that lead to a wholly different approach by the CQC, because I do not think that safety is a priority so far as it is concerned in its inspections? The big question is: will NHS England and NHS Improvement change their approach and make it clear that safety is an important priority for them? Unless they do, I do not think that any change will take place. The strategy—an NHS England strategy, of course—feels like a collection of good practices, but not something that will change the system, which clearly needs to happen.

To get some sense of this, I looked back to the report by Don Berwick, whom I regard as the guru on patient safety internationally, entitled A Promise to Learn and produced in 2013 in the wake of the Mid Staffs inquiry. Berwick was clear that the quality of patient care, especially patient safety, should be placed above all other aims. He said:

“Patient safety problems exist throughout the NHS as with every other health care system in the world. NHS staff are not to blame—in the vast majority of cases it is the systems, procedures, conditions, environment and constraints they face that lead to patient safety problems. Incorrect priorities do damage: other goals are important, but the central focus must always be on”


patient safety.

What Berwick said in 2013 holds good today. The NHS has made progress since then—I readily accept that—but on no count has safety been embedded as the No. 1 concern. That is what makes the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, so important and why she wants an external champion of patient safety, because it clearly ain’t going to come from inside. It is too diffuse. No one is responsible for patient safety. If Aidan Fowler were directly accountable to the Secretary of State and resided in the Department of Health and Social Care, I would begin to believe that that was a serious attempt, but because the Government have decided that all the national clinical directors should be placed under an NHS management system, direction and accountability at the top of the office have been lost. Therefore, the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, makes sense and will have to be listened to positively.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Once we have heard from the noble Lord, I will try one more time to establish contact with the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. However, I have to tell the Committee that so far we have not been successful.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Could he say a little more about the Government’s overall patient safety strategy? He is saying essentially that the Bill is confined to medicines and medical devices regulation, yet underlying the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is the fact that patient safety has not been gripped. In a sense, he has given a technical response. We will come to more specific amendments relating to, say, a patient safety commissioner, but at some point it would be interesting to get an insight into government thinking about patient safety more generally.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

I will be candid with the noble Lord. The Cumberlege report has put patient safety absolutely at the top of the agenda. If it was not for Covid, it would be the primary issue of today in health matters and would lead all our thinking for the year ahead. The report is incredibly important and it has made its mark in a big way. However, it was delivered at the end of July and, if you take out August, that is only six or seven weeks ago. It takes a bit of time to respond to these reports. I know that the noble Baroness is chafing at the bit and wants a response—of course she does—but it has not been very long in report terms.

I cannot avoid the obvious, which is that we are in the middle of an epidemic. The Department of Health is completely overrun. We have nearly doubled in size in the past four weeks, but even so the capacity for response, in ministerial time and official time, simply is not there. I completely understand the keenness of noble Lords in this Room to get a clear response, but the sequencing is that this is a Bill on medicines and medical devices. We seek to take on board the lessons of the Cumberlege report and, where possible, specific items, but the Bill is not designed to be a vehicle for the implementation of the report recommendations. We will acknowledge and, where possible, accommodate the report’s insight, but the report needs a formal response from the Minister for Patient Safety and I am not that Minister and there has not been time for that response to arrive yet.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, before I call the next speaker, I should just inform the Committee that we now know that the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, is unwell, and will therefore be unable to take part in the remainder of today’s proceedings. In due course, no doubt, we will know who will take her place in subsequent groups. I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

Can I just follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley? Clearly, we are going to continue teasing out “attractiveness”. I have no doubt that I want the UK to be attractive in terms of the development of medicines and medical devices, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was absolutely right when he paid testimony to the underlying strength of our medical innovation and discovery, and indeed the life science sector as a whole. I think one of the questions we are going to consistently talk about is that we do have a problem with the attitude of the National Health Service to those very medical innovations that take place in this country. As I will touch a bit on procurement, I should declare an interest as president of the Health Care Supply Association, because clearly it is involved in procurement decisions.

As I think was discussed in the first day of Committee, the ABPI has reported that for every 100 European patients who can access new medicines in the first year, just 15 UK patients have the same access. It is a major problem that we are so slow to take advantage of developments in new medicines and devices, both in our country and globally. We are seeing in the NHS essentially an unprecedented level of rationing, both locally and nationally. My own view is that NICE has developed into more of a rationer than it was ever intended to be. Locally, clinical commissioning groups are making almost perverse decisions, ranging from cutting out health promotion programmes to being very restrictive on some operations or, again, on access to innovative drugs.

Of course I understand that the drugs budget cannot be open-ended, and the NHS must achieve value for money. But the fact is that we are at great risk of losing our place at the top table when it comes to medicines and medical devices innovation, despite the excellence of the people we have, which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to. At the moment, I think we have developed around 14% of the top 100 global medicines, but 20 years ago it was 25%, and the risk, of course, is that we go lower and lower.

Similarly, in relation to access to devices, we have a very innovative devices sector, but again it is utterly frustrated by the NHS’s record in adopting innovation. Its suppliers are forced to battle against a fragmented marketplace—they lack a clear route to market—budget silos that impact on buyers’ ability to release savings directly, and a short-term focus on cash-releasing savings at the expense of longer-term benefits. As an example, I was approached by the Urology Trade Association, which represents the suppliers of the majority of urology projects to the NHS, which pointed out that, in normal times, urinary tract infections are the greatest single cause of unplanned hospital admissions, so it has a big impact on quality and duration of life and on use of NHS resources. If we were prepared to invest in improved devices, it could have a major benefit. But essentially, whatever the Government say about procurement and value-based procurement, they always go for the lowest price, and I am afraid that we often buy the lowest-quality products.

The ABHI has told me of one company in the dialysis sector which now sees the UK as a second or third-tier sector, due to the prices it commands here. I know that on the first day of Committee the noble Lord said he cannot talk about reimbursement; the problem is that Ministers will never talk about reimbursement. It is interesting that, in general, if we are increasing staff—the numbers of doctors and nurses—I think Ministers tend to proclaim that as a good thing. However, increased budgets in devices and medicines is a shock, because the whole philosophy of his department and the NHS is to hold down the budget.

The problem is that, essentially, we do not invest in the great things that are happening. It is naive to think otherwise. There are a lot of things we can do to encourage the kinds of things that are happening in Cambridge—through tax incentives, for example, and schemes for faster access—but they relate only to a few selected medicines and devices. Overall, we are at great risk. I am afraid that the NHS has to face up to some responsibility for that, both in terms of the industry, and in terms of patients. Why should we in this country have to wait so long for medicines that in other European countries are available much sooner? This is a major issue which we need to tackle.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Lord Patel? Oh dear, we are not having a great afternoon. If we cannot establish contact with the noble Lord I will move on to the next speaker. Lord Patel, are you with us?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

The amendment is in my name and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. This group includes four amendments, three of which are mine. I am glad to see in it too Amendment 124, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because it goes to similar issues. I hope that he will find some common ground between us.

Amendments 17 and 79 would add to the considerations to which the Secretary of State should have regard when making medicines regulations and medical devices regulations respectively—Amendment 17 referring to the former and Amendment 79 to the latter. They would bring the same factors into play.

The first factor is the effect of the regulations on the ability of the National Health Service to meet the needs of patients. There could be two interpretations of how this might be seen. The first is that the medicines regulations could give rise to the authorisation of medicines that the NHS was not in a position at that point to fund. I do not think that it is about that. If the NHS has difficulty in paying for such medicines, it has a power under the National Health Service Act to vary the funding mandate that would otherwise be applicable under NICE. The NICE funding mandate for medicines is in that Act and not in the regulations for medicines. What I think this is about is the NHS being increasingly keen to secure the benefits of innovation. We have had a decade or more of reports telling the NHS that while there is a great deal of innovation there is poor diffusion of its benefits through its adoption in the National Health Service. This is about the ability of the medicines regulations to help the NHS to meet unmet medical need, to bring forward innovations and to deploy them. One might say, “Well, the medicines regulator just authorises medicines”, but let me give a couple of examples.

The first is the early access to medicines scheme, which is precisely about giving the NHS the opportunity to bring forward innovative new medicines that meet unmet medical need and to do so more quickly and in ways that often require collaboration between the NHS, MHRA and NICE. The second example is the Accelerated Access Collaborative, which also looks at other schemes such as the small business research initiative. Its purpose is to bring products through to authorisation and approval, which is quite often in relation to medical devices.

The amendments would require the Secretary of State when making the regulations to have regard to the potential for innovative medicines and medical devices respectively, so that they might be accelerated through processes of authorisation in order to realise their benefits more quickly and hence help the National Health Service to meet its objectives.

The second factor to which the amendments would require the Secretary of State to have regard is consultation. Clause 41 places a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult when making the regulations. A later amendment, Amendment 131, requires the Secretary of State to make a report on any such consultation—I think that my noble friend the Minister referred to it earlier—but there is nothing that links back the consultation to the making of regulations. The amendments say not only must the Secretary of State conduct consultation but he must have regard to the outcome of it—these are specifically “have regard to” factors; they are not factors that should be placed above any other factors in the hierarchy that we are talking about or conflict with them.

Amendment 85 is a bit different. I freely admit, before my noble friend the Minister explains it to me, that trying gently to insert it into Clause 13 is probably quite difficult in terms of the legal structure, because that is a place where requirements are to be laid on those who bring products forward for marketing and supply, whereas the amendment would place a requirement on those who are effectively buying medical devices—that is, the NHS in particular. However, I want to ask my noble friend to consider that we are trying to stimulate innovation in medical devices and bring them through into practice. We know that there are significant potential benefits to the National Health Service in such innovations, which improve outcomes for patients and can reduce costs—it can be a win-win. However, there is no funding mandate for medical devices which mirrors that for medicines, so that when NICE produces a positive evaluation the NHS after a period of delay has an obligation to bring forward the funding for those devices.

In January 2019, the NHS Long Term Plan said that the NHS wanted to accelerate proven affordable innovations into use in the NHS. In November 2019, a consultation was launched to look specifically at what is known as the medtech funding mandate—that is, to give that funding mandate to medical technology devices, not just medicines. By March this year, the Accelerated Access Collaborative was meeting and agreeing—this was one of its objectives—that, in the financial year beginning in April 2020, three such products would be brought forward. Those three products were placental growth factor-based testing, whose title more or less explains what it is; SecurAcath, which, as the title again implies, makes catheters more secure, reducing infection; and HeartFlow, which piloted at the Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Trust and is a 3D model mechanism for imaging coronary arteries in ways that reduce intensive testing and enable clinicians to work with a highly developed form of imaging in their practice.

Those three products were to come forward in 2021. The intention, as reported to the board of the Accelerated Access Collaborative, was to do more in future years. As I understand it, NHS England intended to establish this as a medtech funding mandate—perhaps with slightly different characteristics and requirements than that of medicines but, none the less, to give medical device manufacturers the same sense of assurance that, if they bring this forward in the United Kingdom, the NHS, with a positive evaluation, will bring them into practice. However, that has stopped. I have seen nothing since April; it seems to have fallen by the wayside. I seek from my noble friend the Minister an assurance that NHS England wants to do it, that the Accelerated Access Collaborative will help to push it forward and that we will see action on this—if not this day, then this year. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 124 concerns NICE’s current review of its methods and processes as part of the agreement of the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access—commonly known as the VPAS. I will also speak to Amendment 85 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, because he made some important points in his opening remarks.

I have a particular interest in NICE. Under Frank Dobson, I was the first Minister and worked closely with it for the first few years. It was established because of concern that effective new treatments, including medicines and devices, were not getting to NHS patients. This is a continuing problem. At the beginning, we put an additional sum into baseline budgets to cover the estimated cost of technology appraisals.

I have to say that pharmaceutical companies were obviously reluctant to embrace NICE, but so was the NHS. As early as December 2001, I was responsible for a funding direction to the NHS—the original one, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—which required NHS bodies to implement their technology appraisals, because research showed that they were not doing so. They had been given the money, although it was not identified but put into baseline budgets, which is an interesting point.

The funding directions have been modified a few times since then and, to an extent, have reduced the impact. But the fact is that the NHS remains a reluctant partner—and you can add that to the unprecedented level of rationing taking place locally. There is a tendency, even when NICE has approved drugs or a technology appraisal, and even when the funding direction applies, for local mechanisms to be used to restrict access by patients. I have already referred to clinical commissioning groups: they are informed by regional medicines optimisation committees. Essentially, these are rationing committees designed to legitimise decisions by CCGs to ration treatments. I come back to this point: why do we tolerate NHS patients missing out on medicines and devices that are available to most patients in most European countries?

We come to the NICE review. I am a great admirer of NICE, which has done a fantastic job and has some brilliant people. It works with some fantastic universities, and we are world leaders in this field. However, I hope that the methods review will lead to tangible change and that we will get a fair and effective assessment of the true value of innovative medicines.

We are clearly at a crossroads: exiting the EU represents a significant threat to the attractiveness of the UK for pharma and devices companies. What factors do companies take into account? Clearly, the strength of our life sciences sector is one of them. Secondly, there is the regulatory system, which we are discussing in Grand Committee. Thirdly, there is the ability to launch medicines and technologies quickly into a market, getting medicines to patients who need them quickly. These are clearly part of the equation for any company, and pharmaceutical companies tend to be global, to all intents and purposes. The risk is that we will start to lose our reputation as a leader at the cutting edge of medical science. My hope is that NICE’s approach to appraising value must take into account the strategic benefits of the NHS remaining at the forefront of medical innovation.

I shall give an example of where NICE’s current rules rule against this. Gene therapy is a prime example of a medical technology that the UK should embrace, but a procedure called discount rate, used by NICE to adjust for future costs and health benefits when valuing treatments, discriminates against one-time therapies that offer potential long-term health benefits over many years, such as gene therapies. NICE almost always uses the 3.5% rate but can apply a lower 1.5% rate for therapies that offer longer-term health benefits. I understand that it chooses to do that only on exceptionally rare occasions. Post the new 2019 voluntary scheme, negotiated to deliver a triple win for patients, government and industry, we now see NHS England doing bespoke commercial agreements, which of course significantly undervalue innovation.

There is always a tension, but the tension is that the main interest of NHS England is to pare down drug costs. The impact that that has is that, for all the brave words about innovation, it simply does not play out in the field. I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, had to say. There is a HealthTech Connect portal, but I am told that not a single innovation submitted via that portal was adopted by NHS Supply Chain during the first year of operation, March 2019 to April 2020. Are we to assume that none of the submissions meets the criteria in terms of evidence, efficiency or satisfying unmet needs, or are they simply being thwarted by a process that raises the bar to unrealistic levels?

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th October 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am glad to add my name to Amendments 23 and 29. I am a strong supporter of community pharmacies. Over the past few months, they have done magnificent work. They stayed open, took pressure off the rest of the NHS, and are a central part of community resilience. We cannot take them for granted. They face a number of extra costs at the moment: increased prescription numbers, extra staff costs from the increased demands for advice and medicines, covering for sickness and the rise in locum rates, and one-off costs such as decontaminating pharmacies when someone infected has visited. Before Covid-19, the community pharmacy network was already pretty vulnerable.

I am glad that, at the end of March, the Government agreed to inject £300 million-worth of advance payments into community pharmacy. A further £50 million was paid in May, followed by £20 million in June. That £370 million cash advance was of course very welcome, but it will not relieve the ongoing financial pressures because it is set against future income. Instead of this being treated as a loan to be repaid, there should be a recognition of the extra costs that community pharmacies have had to carry since Covid-19. Will the Minister consider that? I also ask her to consider what further financial support needs to be given to the sector over the next few potentially very difficult months.

That is the background to the debate about hub and spoke. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out in previous debates, we have to go to the impact assessment to find any reference at all to hub and spoke. Clearly, it could offer many advantages. Mobile deliverers will be able to partner with dispensing pharmacies to deliver their prescriptions; he spelled out the key advantages. Equally, there are fears that it could undermine the whole community pharmacy network. My concern is about the impact on smaller pharmacy groups and individual companies and shops.

The Minister in the other place, on Third Reading, said that she intended

“to give smaller community pharmacies the same opportunity that large pharmacy businesses already enjoy.”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/6/20; col. 1239]

That is a good statement, but I say to our Minister that Governments often make statements about the importance of small businesses and, when it comes to the actual arrangements, those business often struggle to compete. I hope that this is not being done to try to rationalise the community pharmacy network, because it is a great strength that we have so many pharmacies on our high streets, where people can walk in and get immediate access to health advice and help.

The amendment is very reasonable. It simply asks that the Government consult the sector again on their plans. A previous consultation, started in 2016—two Parliaments ago—has never been concluded. Given the impact on the sector and on patients, surely the Government should undertake a proper consultation, to make sure that any legislation follows that rather than the anticipatory approach referred to by my noble friend Lady Wheeler. I hope that the Government will signal their support for the community pharmacy sector as a whole.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling their amendments, which allow us to have a useful debate; we might not otherwise reach into what some implications of the use of these powers might be. I particularly thank them for the way in which the amendments were introduced, which set out clearly and fairly the context and facts with which we need to work.

I recognise that Amendment 23 is a probing amendment. I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that, if she actually wanted to remove the capacity for legislating to introduce hub and spoke models, Clause 2(1)(g) would have to go as well as paragraph (c) to make that effective, but I do not think she wants to do that; I do not either. We all want to express our support for the pharmacy sector. In my view, the Government’s proposals in the Bill will allow that support to be given additional expression; they seem a positive step to have taken.

As someone who was shielded earlier in the year, about the only place I ever visited in April and May was the local pharmacy—not that often, but the fact that it was there and working, and the way in which it worked, was immensely impressive. Over the years, I have had a great deal to do with the pharmacy industry. In some cases, I am not sure that it was altogether happy about that. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, may remember that I worked with the National Audit Office in about 2008, when I was shadow Secretary of State, to establish the extent to which the pharmacy sector benefited through the category M reimbursement system by hundreds of millions of pounds more than it was supposed to. Those large-scale additional funds that were going into the sector had to be clawed back, as happened in the early part of the decade that we have just gone through.

That led to considerable turbulence in pharmacy incomes and values. They were overinflated and the incomes were higher between about 2015 and 2018, and the considerable clawback had a negative impact. Most recently, it is telling that the value of pharmacies—and the price increase—has gone down. It is also interesting to read the commentaries that say that pharmacy in Scotland attracts greater value because the flow of resources into it there is regarded as more stable than in England.

That is a great pity, because we have reached a point where there should be more stability and funding for pharmacies, and I want to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. He suggested that the Government consider turning the advance payment into not a loan but a grant. It is a large sum of money, so it is not as easy as that. However, whereas earlier this year the global fund for pharmacies was set at about £2.6 billion and was going to be retained at that level in cash terms over five years, we have to think hard about whether that is reasonable under the circumstances. There is a good case for recognising additional costs met by pharmacies this year, and potentially into next year, and for reimbursing them perhaps through a change to the establishment fee before it disappears, with a considerable sum to recognise that.

We must also recognise that pharmacies will need real-terms increases in their resources—much as other parts of the NHS-related system are seeing real-terms increases in resources—and not to stand still in cash terms. Over the next four years, that might be something like £130 million extra.

All the way through, we have never achieved as much as we should in terms of pharmacies delivering additional services, particularly clinical services. It is partly because clinical commissioning groups have never quite recognised the flexibility they have in budget terms to use pharmacies. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred, quite rightly, to medicines use reviews—which are being phased out—new medicine services, nicotine-replacement services, sexual health services, minor illness services and so on. A wide range of additional services can be provided by pharmacies. If they can do it, frankly, the GPs, as those at the heart of the clinical commissioning groups, will find that it benefits them directly in reduced demand on their surgeries, which is of course one of their principal stresses at the moment. I hope that the Government will think about all that.

In this context, with these powers in the Bill, the Government do not need to know whether a large number of independent pharmacies will take advantage of the hub and spoke model. It is entirely permissive; they can choose to do so or not. The fact that they cannot at the moment is a significant potential constraint on the ability of independent pharmacies to access the benefits of automation in their sector. I am absolutely clear that we ought to give them access to this potential benefit. I do not know how many would take advantage of it or to what extent the large company chains would make their hub and spoke model available to allow independent pharmacies to get the benefits of that automation. It seems to me that they should, because there are many parts of the country that they do not reach and where they are not in competition. It is perfectly reasonable for them to allow them to access to it, particularly in some of those more remote parts of the country where dispensing is more difficult.

Many of the concerns raised about this in the debate seem to come down to the separate question that I can remember debating on legislation 15 or more years ago about whether we retain the role of the responsible pharmacist. This does not change that. The responsible pharmacist will remain as is; I do not see any plan to change that part of the pharmacy regulation. The change to hub and spoke seems potentially desirable.

While Amendment 29 does not need to be in the Bill, it makes a very good point, which is that there should be consultation and an agreed framework with the industry, and we should ensure that the framework is one that is seen to link resources and changes in the regulations, to enable it to compete more effectively. To that extent, I hope the Minister will take on board and support the intentions of Amendment 29.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

I just wanted to come back to the consultation. I am grateful to the Minister for her full and encouraging response, but can she say a little more about how the public and patient groups are to be involved in this consultation? In terms of the work, given what the Minister in the Commons said about the small pharmacies, will part of the consultation look at the actual economics of how those small businesses can compete and take advantage of hub and spoke?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the commitment on the consultation is that it would be a public one, in line with the government amendment on what type of consultation we need to undertake for regulations made under the Bill. That would therefore include patient groups. On the content of the consultation, I understand that when it first took place it was very open, to hear from the sector how it would want to make use of the powers. My understanding is that we have heard the need to have a more structured conversation on the framework for how these powers could deliver the benefits which people think they could. Maybe I could undertake to write to the noble Lord with some more detail on that.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

24: Clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(o) the origin and treatment of human tissue used in the process of developing and manufacturing medicines.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the origin and treatment of human tissue, including organs, to the list of matters about which regulations may be made by the appropriate authority, in the context that informed, valid, uncoerced and demonstrably documented consent may not have been given for the harvesting of such human tissue and organs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the world is increasingly aware of China’s forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience. This horrific crime of forcibly removing the organs from living victims—the process leading to inevitable murder—has recently been found by the China Tribunal to be happening extensively. The organ recipient may have had their life saved, but at the expense of another innocent life. It is now a multimillion-pound commercial business in China, with wealthy Chinese officials, Chinese nationals and organ tourists receiving treatment in high-end recovery centres.

Evidence of forced organ harvesting has grown and whistleblowers have emerged. Millions of Chinese citizens are currently detained in labour camps. UN experts estimate that at least 1 million Uighurs are being held in camps in the region of Xinjiang. Elsewhere throughout China, other ethnic and religious minorities such as Tibetan Buddhists, Falun Gong practitioners and Christians are also being held in labour camps. Companies from the West are complicit in this. Adidas, Nike, Zara and Amazon are among the western brands which, according to a coalition of civil society groups, currently benefit from the forced labour of Uighurs in Xinjiang. In July this year, a 13-ton shipment of hair products from Xinjiang, worth more than $800,000, was seized by US Customs and Border Protection. This shipment included wigs made from human hair, which is hugely concerning considering the many reports and personal testimonies of female Uighur Muslims having their heads forcibly shaved in the camps.

Last year, the China Tribunal, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, concluded:

“forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and that Falun Gong practitioners have been one—and probably the main—source of organ supply.”

and that:

“In regard to the Uyghurs the Tribunal had evidence of medical testing on a scale that could allow them, amongst other uses, to become an ‘organ bank’.”


I point out to the Grand Committee the vast body of evidence of forced organ harvesting in China. Such evidence includes: detailed statistical analysis of transplantations and donations; numerous recorded undercover telephone conversations, including with well-known Chinese officials admitting to the practice of forced organ harvesting; legal and policy statements and practice of the CCP; advertisements and admissions of university and military personnel; incredibly short waiting times; and a large number of personal testimonies. The China Tribunal spent 12 months assessing all available evidence. Additionally, its international panel of highly respected individuals interviewed over 50 witnesses, experts and investigators, and formally invited representatives of the People’s Republic of China to respond. I do not believe it is sufficient for the UK Government to ignore this any longer.

Although Ministers have been personally sympathetic, so far the Government have relied on the World Health Organization’s view that China is implementing an ethical, voluntary organ transplant system. I am afraid this is simply not credible; the fact is that it is based on a self-assessment by China, as became clear during my noble friend Lord Collins’s PQ on 29 June 2020. The WHO has not carried out its own expert assessment of China’s organ transplant system, so I am afraid that the WHO cannot be considered reliable in this area. For me, the China Tribunal is persuasive on this point.

This Bill provides an opportunity to prevent British complicity in such crimes and to send an important signal to other countries. Currently, the Human Tissue Act does not require appropriate consent for imported human tissue. In addition, imported human tissue for use in medical research does not require traceability. The Minister has written to me to state that whether sourced from within or outside of the UK, there is comprehensive domestic legislation to ensure the ethical and appropriate use of human tissues. Yet while this is all true for human tissue sourced from within the UK, this does not address the gap in legislation for imported human tissue. On the concern about the use of human tissues in the development of medicines, which I do understand, the Minister commented that the use of imported tissue in any medicines on the UK market is very limited. However, while it may be limited, there is a gap in the legislation which could be exploited in the future.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for his awareness of the passion which many of us feel about the allegations of forced organ harvesting in China and for ensuring that the UK is not complicit in any way. I hope that he will acknowledge that my amendment—which has been signed by a number of very distinguished colleagues— is not prescriptive and essentially gives Ministers regulation-making powers to deal with the issue if and when they decide to do so.

Up to now, we know that many countries have pulled their punches when talking to China about these practices. Of course, as The Economist has pointed out, China’s economic power has helped it to avoid censure regarding its abuse of the Uighurs. Many companies in the West appear reluctant to use any leverage they may have to put pressure on China, and that is not helped by the reluctance of so many countries to upset that country. The UK, of course, faces dilemmas too, and we have seen them already in the issues over 5G and potential Chinese investment in new nuclear energy. I am not naive; I understand some of the pressures which are on the Government, but there must be a time when we make a stand.

I was encouraged by the reported words of Dominic Raab to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 6 October, when he referred to evidence of “gross human rights violations” against the Uighur Muslim minority in Xinjiang province. I pay tribute to the Government for being prepared to say that. I simply want them to go one step further, and agree to a very modest amendment. It seeks to give Ministers the powers to take action when they deem it right to do so. Accepting it would be a very important signal of this country’s attitude to gross human rights violations, and I have great pleasure in moving my amendment.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.

While the Human Tissue Act 2004 is thorough and comprehensive with regard to human tissue sourced from within the UK, this does not hold true for imported human tissue. Human tissue can be imported into the UK without any consent or traceability. Notably, if it is for use in medicines, traceability is required through the Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) Regulations 2007, but for use in medical research neither consent nor traceability is required. They are merely considered good practice. This means that human tissue sourced from China—where people are imprisoned and tortured, and where organs are extracted and sold for profit, a process which kills the donor—can legally enter the UK and be used in medical research.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I have read the findings of the report and will agree to read the full report ahead of any further meetings that we have.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this has been a very powerful debate. Each contribution has been measured and the product of expertise, human value and internationalism. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay, Lady Jolly and Lady Northover, the noble Lords, Lord Ribeiro, Lord Alton, Lord Patel and Lord Sheikh, and my noble friend Lord Collins. I am also grateful to the Minister, who I thought provided a very constructive response at the end.

When the noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked about Alder Hey, he probably did not realise that that is really where my interest in this subject stemmed from. I was the Minister responsible for the north-west at the time that scandal emerged. I appointed the chair of the inquiry and met the parents involved on a number of occasions. I listened to the harrowing tales from parents; some of them took part in three funerals for parts of their child’s body. What happened was shocking, and I learned from that how crucial it is that, when we deal with human tissues and organs, the integrity of the process is vital.

I was also fortunate to be able to take the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill through your Lordships’ House a couple of years ago; it is now law. I hope that it changes the basis of organ consent and will lead to more organ donations in this country—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to this eloquently. Again, when you move to presumed consent, you have to have absolute trust in the integrity of all the people involved. Just as it is important in this country, so it is globally, which is why we must take action in relation to the activities of China—and other countries, as we heard during this debate.

I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say. She made the point that the use of imported human tissues is very limited. None the less, we have identified a gap in the legislation. She made two points: first, she said that the Bill already provides for the kind of authority we wish to give to Ministers; then she went into detail on the drafting challenges that she thought our amendment faced. However, she used her words in a constructive way and I am very grateful to her. I reassure her that I and my colleagues will be very willing to work with her officials to see whether we can come up with an amendment that meet our needs but does not lead to the kind of perverse incentives that she referred to.

This has been a wonderful debate. We have had a constructive response from the Government. I am convinced that we are going to make progress and, at the end of the day, in this legislation we will make a mark—important in this country but also internationally —saying that we will do everything we can to stop this appalling process. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

26: Clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(o) developing rapid provisional two-year licences.”

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

I should explain that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is required in the main Chamber to speak in a debate on the Bill there. I have put my name to her amendments. Amendment 26 and others in this group would ensure the development of a rapid provisional two-year licensing procedure, so that patients might more quickly access potentially life-saving medicines and medical devices, and that device trial results were consistently registered and published.

In earlier amendments, several noble Lords commented on the avoidable delays in innovation, and the tardy response of the NHS to new and improved medical devices. The current licensing procedure in the UK can be lengthy. Safety and efficacy of course are paramount, but in our debate on Monday, my noble friend Lord Blunkett referred to my late noble friend Lady Jowell and her powerful call for fast-tracking. Many patients wanting to trial novel therapies say, “It may not help me, but it may help others.”

As the Minister said at Second Reading, and all speakers on the second group of amendments last Monday, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, we must remain an attractive place to develop new medicines and devices. Amendment 26 supports that aim through the development of a licensing procedure that would speed up making new medicines accessible to the NHS when clinical trials have shown them beneficial and safe for people with the relevant conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I know what the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, means when we have the privilege of hearing, as we have in this debate, so much expertise on very challenging issues. Much of the debate has been about devices, but of course my noble friend Lady Finlay’s first amendment related to medicines. To reiterate, she sought to create a rapid two-year provisional licence without reducing safeguards on new medicines. She thought this would enable us to make best use of innovative new medicines without compromising safety at all.

It is understandable that much of our debate was on devices, because it was informed by the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. She has identified a number of issues around the regulation of devices—it is clearly a less vigilant approach than for medicines, with a lack of data and transparency, the equivalence issue and the challenges she raised. The noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Patel, went into further detail on some of the challenges around devices, particularly those that have a capacity to cause damage. The argument they put was that provisional licences would allow much more effective safety monitoring and early identification of problems and would protect innovation.

The noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, raised the interesting idea of extending the innovation fund that we are shortly to debate to devices. That deserves a great deal of consideration, although he will of course know that the innovation fund will essentially be funded by payments from the pharmaceutical industry. Seeing how money from the devices industry would come about is a much more challenging issue.

The Minister essentially said two things. The first was that what my noble friend wants to achieve in relation to medicines can be done already, that it is in the Bill and that, in any case, there is a new process to expedite medicines where it is deemed appropriate. I think my noble friend will want to look very carefully at that.

The Minister is right on devices. I think he spoke of 500,000 devices. It is a massive challenge; there is no question about that. There are reasons why devices regulation is different from medicines regulation, but when it is clear that there are defects in the current system, we must at least take advantage of the fact that we are now in a position, post-Brexit, to develop our own regulations.

The Minister went through the processes that are currently in place, including the role of notified bodies, but he said that the system can be strengthened and that regulations can be reviewed. At this stage, I urge that this be as open as possible so that we have a really good debate about medical device regulation, informed by the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and by experience elsewhere. We want to do two things: to ensure that our innovative devices sector is given all encouragement, but also to ensure safety in a way that it has not been ensured before. That is a challenge, but it is one worth accepting. In begging leave to withdraw the amendment, I say that this has been a very good debate and I hope it will inform government thinking.

Amendment 26 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

These objections go to the heart of executive overreach, as I mentioned when discussing other amendments on the first day in Committee. Yet again, it is about conferring broad and vaguely delimited powers. Of most concern is that the Minister’s letter takes pain, at the end of the argument on the need for those particular powers, to align them with the promotion of safety, yet the purposes for which disclosure would be lawful under this new amendment are underdefined, to be decided by any international agreement conducted in future, and thus not open to scrutiny here. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, that was a very interesting opening speech from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and I am very glad to have put my name to his amendment—although, of course, he went wider and commented on the government amendments. I very much agree with his desire to minimise delay for the UK to get access to new medicines. That has been a constant theme of our debates.

There are a number of elements in this, including the attractiveness of the UK to pharma companies, for our life sciences, our approach to access to early phase trials, the regulatory system for licensing medicines and the NHS’s willingness to take up those medicines, including the role of NICE. We have debated all of those.

The Minister on the first day in Committee responded to a number of those issues and said that the Government wanted to

“build on our established strengths so that the UK has the opportunity to anchor international drug development in this country and grow that capability. I am committed to international standards, international partnerships and multi-country clinical trials … The UK works closely with many other regulators; those relationships are underpinned by many shared international standards. The EU bases its regulations on exactly those standards”.—[Official Report, 19/10/2020; cols. GC 357-8.]

The issue is, that being said, will we in the end be aligned with Europe so that companies do not have to go through separate processes in which, because the market that we offer in this country is so small compared to the EU market, we will not be a country of first choice for developing new medicines and seeking a licence?

I refer the Minister to a comment that I picked up in the last few days from Britain’s pharmaceutical industry: it has appealed to the Prime Minister to strike a swift side deal with Brussels to avoid delays and shortages of medicines if we leave at the end of the year with a no-deal Brexit. We have heard continuously from the Prime Minister that he was preparing for—indeed, he would embrace—no deal on 31 December. The Government’s departure from any rationality or seeming concern for Britain’s industry and their posturing have left industry without the agreement on mutual recognition of standards that is needed to avoid hugely costly duplication of red tape to maintain the flow of trade in vital drugs. The one phrase that the Minister has not articulated in our debate so far is “mutual recognition of standards”. The fact is, if we are seriously going into a new world where we do not believe that mutual recognition between ourselves and the EU is a sensible or serious proposition, I am afraid that all the talk about this country being an attractive place for pharma will fall on rather stony ground.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, has done a great service in bringing this matter back with a slightly different approach. I hope we can look for a positive response from the Government.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of the intention of Amendment 27 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. As noble Lords know, I made my views on the Brexit approach of working with other regulators clear on the first day in Committee and I do not intend to rehearse them—I am sure that noble Lords will be relieved—but I was struck by how this might work in practice. While listening to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who gave an excellent exposition, I reflected on his story about CAR-T therapies and how that provides a good example of what we need to guard against as we move out of the EMA post Brexit.

In September 2017, I went on a visit to Pennsylvania and had the opportunity to go to Penn Medicine, which is where CAR-T was developed, in a lab sponsored by Novartis. I remember sitting down afterwards and being told about the amazing progress they had made, how this was rolling out to patients and indeed how they were thinking about the next iteration of this medicine, how useful it would be and how much demand there would be for it to be given to American dogs—that is right, dogs. I was sitting there at a time when UK patients did not have access to CAR-T therapies, but American dogs were about to get access. This in a way exemplifies a problem that we have today as part of the EMA but are likely to have tomorrow: our unwillingness to accept the decisions of other stringent regulators who make good decisions and whose processes we trust.

The idea of how we could work with other regulators as expressed in this amendment is incredibly important and could be carried out in two ways. The first is, as I said, in accepting decisions from other stringent regulators, including the FDA, the EMA, of course, and others. There has been resistance—there certainly was in my time as a Minister—about so-called rubber-stamping of other decisions and the implications for legal liability if things go wrong, but I am absolutely confident that these can be overcome. Our regulator should be prepared to accept the paperwork submitted to other regulators and the decisions of other stringent regulators where we have confidence in their processes. Ideally, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, this would be in the form of mutual recognition, but it is perfectly possible for us to do that unilaterally as well. That would go a long way to assuaging the concerns of industry.

The second way, and they are not mutually exclusive, is that the UK could lead the creation of a third global market to go alongside the FDA and EMA by working with independent regulators in Switzerland, Australia, Singapore, Canada and so on. As I say, these are approaches that we could follow in tandem as part of, I hope, a global move towards a single approach.

I am confident that we can follow these routes without causing any harm to patient safety while improving patient access. I am not convinced that they require legislation. I can understand why the noble Lord has tabled the amendment and I support its intention; I do not know that we need to change the law. What I would like to hear, and I hope other noble Lords would like the same, is a commitment from my noble friend the Minister that the Government intend to take this kind of approach. We look forward to speaking to the director of the MHRA on precisely this issue, as she has kindly agreed to meet us next week.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, this amendment was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who unfortunately is not able to attend today. My name is on the amendment and I am very pleased to move it in his name.

This is an amendment that normally one would have thought the Government would have no difficulty in accepting, because it was in the Conservative manifesto at the time of the election. So if you are going to choose an amendment, choose the one that they cannot turn down. I am in the good position of making two speeches, one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and one in my own name. It will be interesting to see which one the Minister accepts, because I am not going to tell her which one is which—I may as well enjoy this while I can.

Patients in the UK often face delays in accessing breakthrough innovations due to the NICE technology appraisal process. This is particularly true of treatments for smaller patient populations, such as patients with rare diseases, where there is greater uncertainty around effectiveness due to the challenges of collecting sufficient data to satisfy NICE’s requirements. To overcome similar challenges and enable access to the latest cancer treatments, in 2016 changes were made to the Cancer Drugs Fund, to increase NICE’s flexibility in decision-making. Between July 2016 and November 2019, approximately 41,000 patients were registered to access 79 drugs, used to treat 160 different cancer conditions. Despite the clear benefits to patients, similar flexibilities have not been extended to other areas such as gene therapy and gene silencing—treatments for rare diseases where there is not much treatment available.

Amendment 28, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would add a clause to the Bill that would require the Secretary of State to establish the innovative medicines fund. This fund was promised in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. Like the Cancer Drugs Fund, its purpose would be to bring innovative medicines into use in the NHS. It would give NHS patients in England access to the latest new medicines, as advised by clinicians, and would give the NHS and NICE valuable data on their effectiveness, often adding information about drugs being used in clinical practice which is not normally available through clinical trials alone. There is an increasing need to extend these access schemes to disease groups beyond cancer, including neurodegenerative conditions such as motor neurone disease and Parkinson’s, as well as haemophilia, cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease. These are diseases with a high unmet need for treatment, but also with real hopes for new treatment options, including gene therapy and gene silencing, as I have already mentioned.

This amendment would amend Section 261 of the NHS Act, which provides powers for the pharmaceutical voluntary price and access schemes, often known as VPAS, as amended by the Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Act 2017. An essential part of VPAS is to improve access to innovative medicines. The new fund would help to deliver this, alongside the MHRA Early Access to Medicines Scheme that we have already heard about. The predecessor to VPAS was the Pharmaceutical Pricing Regulation System. However, over the years, lack of access to innovative medicines has been a source of angst in the industry about the scheme and, for many of us, is part of a system that fails patients. It was not only industry that did not like the scheme; it was denying treatments to patients. We should not have a stand-off between the NHS and drugs companies, with patients losing out in the process. We should have a scheme that adequately rewards the value that is inherent in medicines and also ensures that the NHS is able to provide the treatments that patients need.

The current VPAS sets a budget limit on the NHS drugs bill. If it is exceeded, the industry will provide a rebate. In the past, the NHS has seen rising drug costs but has not seen the rebate—so the NHS took the rebate but did not reinvest it in other innovative medicines. By way of the Innovative Medicines Fund, the NHS, the life sciences sector and patients would all see the benefit of the rebate. The proposed new clause would require the rebate to be made available to the fund, and it is that rebate which will provide the money for the fund. I hope—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, will agree—that it will be open to Ministers to take advantage of these powers to provide additional resources to the fund, according to its needs. The clause will provide the means by which the Government can deliver on their manifesto pledge and, in doing so, deliver to patients, some of whom are in great need.

I do not see how the Government can resist Amendment 28; they can only improve on it. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am glad to support the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and I have a great deal of sympathy with this amendment. Of course, I speak as one of a long line of former Ministers who have wrestled with the tension between a cash-restrained NHS and the imperative to invest in new medicines and devices. I have come to the conclusion that we are not going to see the investment we want to see in these new medicines without a radical change of approach.

When we debated access in Grand Committee a couple of meetings ago, the Minister used words to the effect that he would not go anywhere near reimbursement. That is at one with the way the NHS regards drug costs: as a price and a cost to be pared down rather than as an investment in patient care. The unwillingness of Ministers to tackle the issue of reimbursement to the industry in a way that incentivises the use of new medicines is, I think, very disappointing. I do not think that there is any way around this, unless we top-slice some of the resource for the NHS and distribute it separately for investment in new medicines.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, referred to current and previous agreements with the industry. I want to go back to the 2014 PPRS agreement, which does I think provide a model for us. It provided assurance on almost all of the branded medicines bill for the NHS, so the bill stayed flat for the first two years of the scheme and grew slowly after that. The industry made quarterly payments to the Department of Health when NHS spending on branded medicines exceeded the allowed growth rate. The quarterly payments that the industry made could have been used to fund new medicines—but, as the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, mentioned last week, it is very hard to explain what exactly happened. With a cap in place and with reimbursements being made by the industry, the NHS proceeded to try to ration drug costs at local level. So, instead of having a virtuous circle where essentially the industry guaranteed the cap on drug costs in order to allow for investment in new medicines, we had a double whammy. The industry price was pared down and the NHS continued in its bad old ways of trying to prevent new medicines being accessed by patients.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, before the noble Lord winds up, I want to thank the Minister. Clearly, the fund is welcome, but it will cover only a limited number of medicines. The debate goes wider than that.

I want to ask the Minister about the financial contribution that her department receives under the current voluntary agreement with pharma for sales of branded health service medicines. Does she not agree that it is a strange position we have reached where, if the cost to the NHS of those branded medicines goes above the agreed rate, her department receives a rebate? That is excellent, but why then does the NHS continue to treat drug costs almost as a pariah and hold down its investment in new medicines? Why cannot that rebate be used as a way to incentivise a switch by the NHS to new medicine?

I have debated this with the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, and his predecessor. It is a real issue. The NHS itself believes drug costs to be a major problem, but the department has essentially solved the problem at a national level through the rebate scheme. Somehow, instead of a virtuous circle, we have got the very opposite.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

The noble Lord speaks with great passion. He is right that the debate goes wider than the innovative medicines fund, but it might also go somewhat wider than the scope of the Bill. I am, however, happy to write to him on the points that he raises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

This clause deals with falsified medicines and is a very important clause, and it is important therefore that we get this right. Amendment 30 would tighten the provisions to avoid unintended consequences of data being used for purposes other than to ensure that medicines are safe, and Amendment 33 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to act with a view to, rather than having regard to, the importance of ensuring that information is retained securely when exercising powers. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, whom I thank for supporting mine, are similarly concerned with the safety of information and accountability.

The MHRA said that the Falsified Medicines Directive will cease to apply in the case of a no-deal Brexit, because UK pharmacies will no longer have access to the database that holds false medicines data under the FMD. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, during Second Reading described the measures as “legislative creep” with regard to how any data could be used. He said that the clause

“considerably broadens the original data-collection provisions of the Falsified Medicines Directive”.—[Official Report, 2/9/20; col. 391.]

That is the whole point of these amendments. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, also said at Second Reading that the Company Chemists’ Association had raised concerns around the clause. Malcolm Harrison, the chief executive of the CCA, said he had grave concerns about the wording of Clause 3(1)(b), which relates to the development of a UK system to prevent the supply of falsified medicines. Jerome Bertin, general manager of SecurMed UK, said

“it is hard to determine if this would broaden the rights of access to such data, but the use of ‘for any purpose’ might suggest wider access rights, though for which stakeholders or regulators is unclear”.

Clearly, there needs not to be any ambiguity in this Bill. The wording of the clause therefore needs to be adjusted to ensure that there is no confusion and that there is a clear direction that data should not be used for any other purpose than ensuring that medicines are safe. Jerome Bertin also said that the Bill

“does not go anywhere near the detail of the EU directives (2001/83/EC superseded by 2011/62/EU) so it is hard to assess whether the FMD style protections would be diluted in a UK-only falsified medicines regulation”.

That is a legitimate question that needs to be answered.

There is no mention of this clause or this issue in the Explanatory Notes or the impact assessment for the Bill. With such a big issue regarding extremely sensitive data, there should be a more clearly outlined direction and a better thought-out way of introducing this clause for falsified medicines that also protects the extremely sensitive data that comes with it.

These amendments aim to ensure that data is protected and will not be used for any other purpose other than to ensure that medicines are safe. It is crucial that we get this right to avoid any unintended consequences, which could have grave repercussions. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

I very much support my noble friend in these amendments. As they have with her, a number of organisations have raised with me their concerns. The clause refers to the

“use, retention and disclosure, for any purpose to do with human medicines”,

which is very open-ended. In relation to information collected by such a system, it considerably broadens the original data-collection provisions of the Falsified Medicines Directive. Yet the Explanatory Notes make no mention of this. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is not with us today but, when we debated it earlier, he referred to it as “legislative creep”—and, I must say, I agree with him.

In the Commons, the Health Minister Jo Churchill said in Committee:

“The Bill, in the main, does not deliver any immediate change to the regulation of medicines and medical devices.”—[Official Report, Commons, Medicines and Medical Devices Bill Committee, 8/6/20; col. 7.]


So it is very surprising to see this clause as currently drafted.

We have had briefings from the Company Chemists’ Association and ABPI, in addition to the ones that my noble friend mentioned. Because of the issue of commercially sensitive data, Article 54a, regarding the protection of personal information or information of a commercially confidential nature generated by the use of the safety features, was inserted into the preamble of the Falsified Medicines Directive. The principle of “whoever generates the data owns the data” was enshrined in Article 38 of the associated delegated regulation of 2016, which followed the Falsified Medicines Directive.

The Minister’s department already has access to a wide range of data on medicines’ sales and use in the UK under the Health Services Products (Provision and Disclosure of Information) Regulations, which we debated at some length a little while ago in your Lordships’ House. Of course, Ministers can request more detailed information if required. Given this access and the known sensitivities around falsified medicines data in general, it is unclear why the department wants to extend the purposes for which data is collected under a future UK system and why this has not been discussed with stakeholders in the existing Falsified Medicines Directive scheme. Why was such little reference made to it in the Explanatory Notes?

It is not unreasonable to ensure that the Bill is amended to enshrine at least a duty of full consultation with stakeholders before it goes through your Lordships’ House.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

The noble Lords, Lord O’Shaughnessy and Lord Clement-Jones, have withdrawn. I therefore call the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

I am pleased to move Amendment 46 in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton, which, alongside other amendments in this group, amends provisions in Clauses 6 and 15 and removes provisions for the disapplication of regulatory provisions in an emergency to be made subject to conditions set out in a protocol published by Ministers.

We understand why the Bill confers emergency powers on the Government to disapply existing health medicine regulations in circumstances which give rise to the need to protect the public from a serious risk to public health. However, we are concerned that the disapplication authorised in the regulations can be subject to conditions specified in the regulations, or conditions set out in a protocol published by the public authority. Furthermore, no formal requirements are set for the form, publication or dissemination of a protocol. It may simply be a document published on a website by the appropriate authority. This is completely inappropriate and unsatisfactory.

The Minister will be very aware that both the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee raised concerns about this provision. The Constitution Committee noted that:

“In other bills emergency powers are time-limited and there are often requirements for periodic reviews of their use”,


and yet

“No such constraints or safeguards exist in this Bill. These powers are subject only to the negative resolution procedure and can be adjusted by the amendment of a protocol which is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny”.


As the DPRRC commented at paragraphs 39 and 42:

“On a number of occasions, we have drawn the attention of the House to provision in Bills which enables Ministers to make what are, in effect, legally enforceable rules under the radar of the Parliamentary scrutiny that is afforded to primary and secondary legislation … Allowing regulations to make the disapplication of legislation subject to conditions set out in a ‘protocol’ is yet another example of ‘camouflaging legislation’ … we consider that, where those powers are to be used to provide for legislation to be disapplied in an emergency, any conditions to which disapplication is to be subject should be set out in the regulations themselves and not in a ‘protocol’ which is not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.”


The Constitution Committee concurred and recommended that

“the use of these powers should be time bound, subject to periodic review and that any conditions on the disapplication of legal provisions should be set out in regulations.”

Although the Government have yet to publish their full response to those reports, as we know, the Minister has tabled, and indeed moved, a number of amendments in Grand Committee which are intended to address the concerns of the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee. This amendment provides an excellent opportunity for the Minister to explain to the Committee exactly why he has not therefore tabled an amendment ensuring that the disapplication of legal provisions is invariably set out in regulations, as recommended. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am very glad to support my noble friend Lady Wheeler. I will not repeat what she said, because I thought she put across the points very powerfully. She quoted extensively from the Delegated Powers Committee, which complains that no justification whatever has been given for what the Government seek to do.

It is worth saying that the committee has drawn the attention of the House to this kind of mechanism being adopted in a number of Bills over the past few years. I was very struck by the assurance it sought from the Government that they would not continue the practice of what it called “camouflaging legislation” as guidance. In response to the committee’s report on both the Ivory Bill and the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill, the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, wrote:

“As you will be aware, it is Government policy that guidance should not be used to circumvent the usual way of regulating a matter. If the policy is to create rules that must be followed, the Government accepts that this should be achieved using regulations subject to parliamentary scrutiny and not guidance”.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 11th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I said at Second Reading that we on these Benches are supportive of the extension of prescribing rights to additional health- care professionals, including radiographers, dietitians, orthoptists and speech and language therapists. It is time that this issue was resolved and that is our intention in tabling this amendment. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals and a timetable for additional healthcare professionals to be given appropriately restricted prescribing rights. I thank my noble friends Lord Bradley and Lord Hunt, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for their support and I look forward to hearing their remarks.

The background to this issue is that, in February 2020, in response to a Parliamentary Question tabled by my honourable friend Geraint Davies MP, the Government said:

“Subject to Parliamentary approval, the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill currently before Parliament will give the Government powers to extend prescribing responsibilities to new professional groups where it is safe and appropriate to do so.”


We support that extension and our proposed amendment to the Bill will expedite that, resulting in better outcomes for patients and the system as we face a surge in demand on health services both now and in the future due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The extension will build on the groundwork already undertaken by the NHS England scoping exercise over the past few years on extending prescribing rights to members and professionals. Extending prescribing rights would help to deliver better support and more timely care for patients. It would improve patient safety, as allied health professionals with appropriate expertise would be able to make decisions rather than relying on junior clinicians signing off clinical management plans. It would decrease the number of patient group directions needed, thus reducing the time spent on development, use and training, and it would bring prescribing expertise closer to the patient. It would reduce the pressure on other stretched professionals, including GPs, and it would improve system efficiency by reducing the duplication of work among health professionals, with a potential result of significant time and resource savings. The extension of prescribing rights to these professionals and others would make a significant and positive difference to those professionals and to the ability of the wider health system to respond as swiftly and efficiently as possible to the post-Covid-19 surge in demand on health services, including the rehabilitation and recovery of post-Covid-19 patients.

It is important to recognise the impact of Covid-19 and how it has emphasised the urgency of taking action. When we discussed these issues before the Bill came before the House, representatives expressed their frustration at how long it seemed to be taking to get approvals to work their way through the system. Given that we have managed to shortcut various systems because it has been necessary to do so with Covid-19, it seems that this is one that presents itself and needs a positive response. It will benefit the NHS, patients and expert health groups. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment and the potential for increasing prescribing responsibilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was a huge champion of prescribing rights for nurses. I was able to extend that to community pharmacists and I want to see us now build on that by extending it to other professions in healthcare. Dietitians, occupational health therapists, orthoptists, radiographers and speech and language therapists all have a hugely important role to play and giving them prescribing responsibilities would help to deliver safer, better and timelier patient care.

We have seen already how dietitians have hugely expanded their role in the treatment of diabetes, gastroenterology, bariatrics, metabolic conditions and oncology. Orthoptics has seen its roles expand in stroke management and neuro-rehabilitation and neuro-ophthalmology, in particular among children with SEN and for paediatric ophthalmology. Diagnostic radiographers are increasingly performing routine interventional procedures under imaging control, while speech and language therapist roles have developed in respiratory care, ear, nose and throat services, critical care and end-of-life care. Occupational therapists have increased their advanced practitioner roles and are demonstrating a hugely beneficial impact across all areas of the NHS.

There is a problem. It has been reported that the current ability of these professions to administer medicines to support patients through patient group directions and/or patient-specific directions is apparently becoming increasingly difficult. They are either taking longer to secure or they are being more restrictive, to the detriment of patient care and safety. I ask the Minister why this is. I refer to his interesting comment on Second Reading, when he said:

“NHS England and NHS Improvement are considering across all non-medical groups, influenced by learning from the Covid-19 pandemic, where there is a need to consider undertaking formal consultation on potential amendments to prescribing responsibilities for several professional groups.”—[Official Report, 2/9/20; col. 432.]


This is very welcome—and, of course, implied in that statement is a recognition that during the past six months we have had to rely on professional and other staff adding to their responsibilities and going beyond the extra mile. By extending prescribing rights, we would be recognising that fact and recognising that many of our professionals can do more, if they are given the ability to do it.

Provided that this happens within safe bounds—and so far, prescribing for non-medics seems to have worked very successfully—we have a total win-win situation, in which patients will benefit and the professional development and satisfaction of many of our staff groups will increase. I believe that my noble friend’s intention is to give the Minister all support for charging on with the extension of prescribing rights, and I hope that she will embrace that support and get a move on.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I must declare two interests in explaining why I have put my name to the amendment—first, as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Speech and Language Difficulties, and secondly, as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. As always, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, both of whom know a great deal more about this subject than I do.

As I reported on Second Reading, on 12 August the Minister in the other place wrote that the Bill would allow the Government to update those professional organisations that can prescribe medicines when it was safe and appropriate to do so. This is in line with what the Minister said on Second Reading, which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. If the experience of dieticians, orthoptists, diagnostic radiographers and speech and language therapists is anything to go by, the role of such people has expanded considerably during the pandemic, during which there has been ever-increasing pressure on health professionals.

Prescribing responsibilities would enable allied professions to share the burden with their NHS colleagues and avoid unnecessary delay and duplication for patients. Their call for increased prescribing responsibilities is backed up by hard-pressed NHS trusts, which have identified a means of increasing their capacity. Therefore I hope that, on the basis of experience during the pandemic, the Minister will be able to announce proposals and a timetable for extending prescribing rights for certain carefully chosen health professional organisations within three months of the Bill being passed, as part of the NHS long-term improvement plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for tabling and moving this amendment for a number of reasons, the first of which is that it allows me to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for moving Amendment 28, in his name and mine, last week on the innovative medicines fund and to say how much I welcomed the debate on it, which I have read, and the Minister’s response.

I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his subsequent letter about the innovative medicines fund. There is of course a direct parallel in that Amendment 91A would look for the innovative medical devices fund to be funded in a similar way. I just gently dispute one proposition with my noble friend: he said that the use of the rebate on the voluntary pharmaceuticals access scheme would not be appropriate for the innovative medicines fund because the amounts could vary sharply from one year to the next. This would be a problem only if there were a direct hypothecation for the amount, and that is not necessarily implied. The amount of the innovative medicines fund could be established as a fixed amount that would then be funded by the rebate or, in the absence of a rebate, by the Exchequer or though NHS England’s total budget. It would not necessarily rise or fall with the rebate. The same would of course be true for the innovative medical devices fund.

There is a central proposition that supports both an innovative medicines fund and a medical devices fund; it is not that we in the United Kingdom lack innovation, it is that we lack the adoption of innovation in the National Health Service. That was the starting point for the Cancer Drugs Fund, on which this proposition is based. The Cancer Drugs Fund arose, in policy terms, from an analysis by Professor Mike Richards, who was then the cancer tsar under the last Labour Government, that there was a significant lack of availability of the latest cancer medicines for cancer patients, compared with other, principally European, countries. At the time that was not true for some other disease groups and medicine available for other diseases. It was a problem particular to cancer.

Why does this happen? It is not simply about funding; there is a systematic issue here, separate from the amount of resource, which is that the United Kingdom has a single-payer system. A single-payer system necessarily makes decisions about the availability of medicines on the basis of the whole system moving together. I suspect the same is true for devices. Pretty much all of the other European systems are not single-payer systems, but insurance-based systems, where, essentially, clinicians advise, patients choose and insurers pay. That brings innovations into use much more rapidly. There is potentially a problem with the diffusion of innovation in the NHS, which we have seen before and we have to continually guard against.

I put this question to the Minister for when he responds to this debate: are patients in the NHS getting access to new, effective medical devices as quickly as patients in other countries? I do not know the answer to that. I am absolutely clear that there was a good case for the Cancer Drugs Fund. I am clear that there is a continuing need for the innovative medicines fund, because there is sometimes a continuing gap between the availability of the most effective new medicines here and in other countries. I do not know about devices.

To this extent I offer an apology to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, because a medical devices fund might be premature, in the sense that we do not know to what extent there is a gap in the adoption or diffusion of innovation where medical devices are concerned. We identified real potential in the previous debate on Amendment 85 about the funding mandate for medical devices. If that is rolled out, as I think is the intention, and extended to a faster and larger pipeline of medical devices going through the NICE evaluation process, then we may find there is not too much of a problem. There may well be a case for understanding to what extent medical devices are being adopted by the NHS, relative to other health economies. I hope the Minister will agree that is worth looking at.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Because this is about devices, I should remind the Committee that I am president of GS1 UK, the barcoding association, and chair of the advisory board of TenX Health.

I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, posed a very interesting question about whether NHS patients have less access to innovative new medical devices than those in other European countries. My gut feeling is that they do, but I agree that the more information we can obtain the better so that we can debate whether the fund that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, proposed is a good way forward. On the face of it, I think it is. We have a situation in this country that is rather the case for medicines, where we have a very important health technology and medical devices sector. The ABHI informed me recently that the health technology industry employs over 127,000 people, generating a turnover of £24 billion. That is very substantial.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I join my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering in apologising for having my name to amendments here while I have found myself in proceedings on another Bill which was fairly encompassing in the sense that it required a good deal of attention to understand what was going on. We were not able to achieve the result that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, managed of being in both places at once. However, I am glad to be here on this occasion and I am particularly interested in Amendment 117, which we may reach later.

In this group, I particularly support Amendment 127, which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has carefully referred to already. I generally support all that has been said by others before me on this group of amendments, especially the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to the need to keep in mind the medical charities. I think particularly of Cancer Research, but it applies equally, as he said, to all of them.

I wondered whether the government amendment made unnecessary some of our amendments, but I really wonder about that, because a public consultation is not specifically targeted, and I think the groups that we have represented—particularly in relation to Amendment 127—require to be consulted more directly. I do not know how your Lordships feel about consultations, but I often find that I did not know that there was a consultation at all until the time allowed for it was well passed. That is no doubt due to my lack of efficiency, but I suspect that a lot of patients will not know that a public consultation is happening unless it is drawn specifically to their attention. It is important that the consultation, public as it is, has direction as well. Therefore, I think that Amendment 127 and the other specific amendments are well worth considering in relation to the new government amendment.

I am also extremely anxious that the devolved Administrations should be properly consulted. Of course, devolution and independence are different things, and we are talking about devolved institutions at present. This group of amendments is important, and I agree with most of what has been said about them. Therefore, I do not need to say any more on this occasion.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord. I have added my name to that of my noble friend Lady Thornton to Amendment 128, which was introduced by my noble friend Lady Wheeler. This regards the organisations to be consulted—other noble Lords have already referred to this—and concerns the provisions of Clause 41 for consultation on Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill. As noble Lords have said, at the moment, it is entirely up to the Secretary of State who is consulted, other than the clarification the Government have brought in relation to the devolved Administrations.

The context of this amendment is the extensive power given to Ministers under the Bill. We have debated this before, but it is worth reminding the Committee that the Delegated Powers Committee in its report on the Bill was highly critical of Ministers for failing to provide sufficient justification for parts of the Bill adopting a skeletal approach. As the committee said, the Bill gives Ministers wide powers to almost completely rewrite the existing regulatory regime for medicines and medical devices.

It is also worth reminding the Committee that the Constitution Committee described the Bill as

“a skeleton bill containing extensive delegated powers, covering a range of significant policy matters, with few constraints on the extent of the regulatory changes that could be made using the powers.”

It went on to say:

“The Government has not provided the exceptional justification required for this skeleton approach.”


The case for a sunset clause is readily apparent, but in its absence, the way in which consultations are done assumes more importance than normal. It is very surprising that the duty to consult is open-ended and simply leaves it to Ministers to decide who to consult. The Minister may say that he does not like lists of organisations to be consulted, but legislation is littered with lists of organisations because it is important to reflect the range of bodies that ought to be consulted. Discretion is always given to Ministers to add to those lists of organisations.

I hope that the Minister will be prepared to take this back because in the end, certainly in the absence of a sunset clause, we have to beef up the provisions on consultation.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support in particular Amendments 105 and 127 in this group, but I shall speak briefly to Amendment 105 and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for introducing this short debate on it. In the context of the proposal for a requirement to consult the devolved Assemblies, I share the concern expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern: it is essential that we keep all the devolved Assemblies in tune with Westminster thinking as the Bill and the regulations under it progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I am not clear whether the noble Lord, Lord Patel, also wishes to do so. Perhaps that could be clarified.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

I thank the Minister for his extensive response. Essentially, he has relied on the well-known departmental argument that, by listing certain categories of organisation, you exclude others. However, legislation that has been passed in the last few years has often contained extensive lists of organisations to be consulted. Amendment 128, which I support, would give Ministers the power to consult any other persons that the authority considered appropriate. I wonder whether the Minister will just answer this. He would surely accept that this Bill is highly unusual in giving a huge amount of powers to Ministers essentially to change primary legislation through regulation and extensively to alter the regulatory framework for medicines and medical devices. Given that, we should be careful about similarly open-ended regulations on consultation. The amendment would provide reassurance to the key sectors that they will be consulted, but it would also give discretionary power to Ministers to add to that on the occasions when greater flexibility was needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patel. No doubt we will have further debates about the role of politics in the National Health Service. I would just say to him that I think the failure of NHS England is, in many ways, an example of how we end up with a quango that seems unaccountable to Parliament but Ministers wash their hands of many of the decisions that they make. The problem is that you can end up with the worst of all worlds.

That perhaps reflects some of the issues relating to patient safety because, thanks to the Minister, we all enjoyed meeting the person responsible for patient safety in NHS England. The problem is that NHS England has many other responsibilities, including financial and target responsibilities. Patient safety does not really seem to be that body’s top concern.

This seems to be the very point that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, makes. Her report’s conclusion is really rather shocking in many ways. She made a general conclusion from the three areas that she investigated. She said that the healthcare system

“is disjointed, siloed, unresponsive and defensive. It does not adequately recognise that patients are its raison d’etre. It has failed to listen to their concerns and when, belatedly, it has decided to act it has too often moved glacially.”

That is a devastating critique, particularly in relation to patient safety.

I forgot to declare an interest as a member of the GMC board, but I must make it clear that I am not speaking on behalf of the GMC.

The noble Baroness’s recommendation of a patient safety commission is so powerful because she proposes that somebody sits outside the current system, accountable to Parliament and not to Ministers or the devolved NHS management system. She argues for the commissioner to have the necessary authority and standing to talk about, report on, influence and cajole where necessary without fear or favour on matters related to patient safety.

In pointing to the Children’s Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has really put her finger on it. This gives us an idea of the sort of person we need—someone who, like the Children’s Commissioner, challenges the positions of Governments, schools, unions and local authorities. As the noble Baroness said, I am certain that it was the Children’s Commissioner’s comments that led to the reopening of schools. I do not believe that somebody in a government department or a quango could have done that. She did it because, personally, she is a very admirable person, but structurally, because she is wholly independent.

The noble Baroness made some very telling points when she anticipated a potential criticism of her report. The core of it is that many organisations already have some responsibility for patient safety in their remit. That is true, and they all do good work, but she is right because none of them really has patient safety as a systematic approach to the NHS as their sole remit. Until we have some independent agency or person with patient safety as their sole remit, I am afraid that I do not think that we will make progress. We must accept that, if patient safety is one of many objectives of an organisation, compromises inevitably have to be made.

There is a tension between funding, throughput, targets and patient safety—not always, but sometimes. Here, I turn back to my experience as a foundation trust chair. The trust boards hold a huge amount of tension within them. Of course they are concerned with patient safety and quality, but they are also under the cosh from NHS England and the regulator, NHS Improvement, for their overall performance, whether financial or in throughput. I certainly accept the argument that many of the best organisations where everything runs well include patient safety, but to deny that there is a tension between these other objectives and patient safety is disingenuous.

That is why we look forward to the Minister making a strong statement. If he simply says that this is outside the Bill’s scope, as we have been told consistently, it will not cut the mustard, because we could easily start expanding and extending the Bill as we get other legislation and when the Government finally respond to the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. In my view, the Bill will not leave this House unamended unless the Government can make it clear that they are determined to implement the noble Baroness’s central recommendation.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, I suggest that the Committee adjourn for 15 minutes.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 19th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]]

My Lords, as noble Lords are well aware, First Do No Harm, the report of my review, was published in July of this year. Our ninth and final recommendation was that the Government should set up a task force to implement the other recommendations and the many actions for improvement contained in the report. That task force has not been set up, and the Government remain silent on whether they will agree to do so and, indeed, on the report as a whole.

This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to set up a task force within three months of the Bill becoming law. I would much rather not find myself tabling it; I would much rather the Government saw the urgency and had already set up the task force, because it is designed to help the department and the wider healthcare system to do the thinking, to make sure we get the details right and to set out a pathway and a timeline for implementing the report’s recommendations.

I believe it must be a collaborative venture; it should involve not just the department and its arm’s-length buddies but also patients. It would be a missed opportunity were it not to include the representatives of my review, because we have the knowledge and the expertise, acquired over two and a half years of work. To inspire confidence among people who have suffered, it needs to be independently chaired and overseen by a government board.

We feel that the task force is the right way to approach the job of implementing the review’s recommendations. My noble friend the Minister may well tell us that the Bill is not the right place for this measure—that is as may be—in which case, if he were able to reassure me that the task force would be set up separately by the Government, as we envisage in this proposed new clause, and on a similar or shorter timescale, I would be more than satisfied.

These matters are pressing. Our recommendations need to be implemented if we are to help people who have suffered so much already, many of them for decades. We must try to prevent further avoidable harm to more patients and families in the future. The task force is the key to making this happen, and those of us who have run organisations know that they need some discipline and something like a task force—a body that will ensure that the task set out is actually implemented and that it happens. I beg to move this amendment, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and to support what she is saying. At the heart of her argument is the concern that, although the Minister said earlier in Grand Committee that the Government are weighing it up with all “seriousness and intent”, the Government are not going to run with the core of the noble Baroness’s recommendations. Because the Government have been so reluctant—very unusually—to respond immediately to the thrust of her report, there remains a lot of uncertainty about how far the Government are prepared to implement it.

Of course, the opportunity given to us with the medicines Bill enables us really to press the Government to be more detailed about what they are going to do. On Tuesday, we had a very good debate on the recommendation for the appointment of a patient safety commissioner. The Minister made a very extensive response, which essentially set out the measures that the Government are taking to embed patient safety throughout the NHS. I shall just mention a few: promoting a positive learning culture at the heart of the NHS; taking steps to help staff to speak up when things go wrong; establishing the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch to examine the more serious patient safety incidents and promote system-wide learning; appointing medical examiners to provide much-needed support to bereaved families and improve patient safety; introducing a duty of candour, so that hospitals tell patients if their safety has been compromised, and apologise; and commissioning the NHS national director of patient safety, Dr Aidan Fowler, to publish a strategy, which, of course, has been done.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

122: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—
“Medicines and Medical Devices Redress Agency
The Secretary of State must, by the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, bring proposals before Parliament to establish a Redress Agency for those harmed by medicines and medical devices.”

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this is a probing amendment. Although I am a member of the GMC board, I make it clear that I am not speaking on behalf of the GMC.

It is very difficult to move on to the nitty-gritty of a redress agency after the hugely eloquent and moving speech made just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. The Minister said in his response to the noble Baroness that this is not the Bill to respond to the report. What I say to him is that this is the only Bill in town. Medicines and medical devices are at the core of patient safety. He promised that the Minister responsible for patient safety would make a Statement on the report in December. My assumption is that that will be made after the Bill has passed through the House of Lords, and therein lies the problem: we will not be told the Government’s response before we come to the critical Report stage. We just have to work on the assumption that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said, the Government are not going to embrace her core recommendations. We will therefore have to take action on Report on that basis. I do not see what other course of action the House of Lords can take, unless the Government are prepared to bring forward their Statement so that we can see it before we reach Report.

I have just one other point. I listened to the Minister, and he has been very helpful in setting out some of the initiatives that the Government are taking. However, as with the patient safety strategy—we have been here before—the department seems to have collected all the examples of good practice it can find, bunged them into a report and called it a strategy. That is the problem, because it ain’t a strategy. It does not address the fundamental crunch that the NHS has been run far too hot and is unsafe. When you really tackle that, you have to tackle the issues of resources, work force and targets. That is a huge challenge to the Government, which is why they are so reluctant to go down that course.

What does that have to do with the redress agency? I will try to come to that in a moment. However, I want to ask the Minister whether he can say anything about this recommendation. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, argued powerfully for a redress agency to be set up on an avoidable-harm basis that looks to systematic failings, rather than blaming individuals, encourages reporting and should provide faster resolution for claimants. She argues that it should be a consensual process rather than a judicial one. Redress would be offered, not awarded, and proceedings under the scheme would be voluntary. She also said that the redress agency would have an important role to play in harm prevention as claims for adverse events would be centralised, enabling data to be provided that would help regulators detect signals earlier.

This is not the first time that a redress scheme has been proposed. Indeed, 17 years ago, an NHS redress scheme was unveiled by the then Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson. It included no-fault compensation for babies born with severe brain damage, and payments of up to £30,000 without litigation for patients whose treatment went wrong. Under the scheme, parents would get a managed medical care package for their child, monthly payments for other care of up to £100,000 a year, lump sums for home adaptations and equipment of up to £50,000, and compensation for pain and suffering capped at £50,000. The other arm of the redress scheme, for smaller negligence claims, would have provided a package including an explanation and apology, remedial treatment, rehabilitation and care where needed and financial compensation up to £30,000 where authorised. Legislation followed in 2006, but 14 years later it has, as I understand it, yet to be implemented. The aim of the Act was to provide a genuine alternative to litigation, but it has languished on the statute book. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell me whether that is it and whether the Government do not think it the appropriate way forward.

I also ask the Minister to say something about the increase in negligence costs to the NHS. The latest annual report from NHS Resolution shows that the total cost of payments made in respect of clinical negligence in 2019-20 was £2.32 billion. Of that figure, a substantial amount was paid in legal costs: nearly £500 million to claimant legal costs and £143 million for NHS legal costs. We know that it often takes years for cases to be resolved.

Is the Minister confident that we are getting this right? Does the noble Baroness’s recommendation not deserve examination, at least? I beg to move.

[Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is hard to follow the very well-researched contribution to this whole issue from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It was interesting to hear about Sir Liam Donaldson’s report, which got on to the statute book but was not implemented. Is that not a disgrace? It is really dreadful.

Very near to where I live is the centre for Chailey Heritage, now the Chailey Heritage Foundation, for children who suffered through their mothers having taken the drug thalidomide. I chaired its governing body for years. It is interesting that that redress system still continues; it is supported by a trust, which inherited the disaster of the medication, and it has honoured that and receives government support. So we have examples where this is working.

The redress agency that we recommend is really about the future. My amendment is about the present. We know that so many patients and their families have suffered such harm, and we need a system that is more compassionate and a much more certain route for obtaining redress to compensate them. We are talking not about compensation as such, but about redress. You have to go to the courts to achieve compensation, and it is a very miserable experience—we have heard that from patients. It also takes a very long time and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, very often the people who benefit most are the lawyers.

We are talking about Primodos, sodium valproate and pelvic mesh—the three interventions through which people have suffered avoidable harm. The suffering they endure now is terrible. All three have caused and are causing avoidable psychological and, of course, physical and neurological harm. These families really need a little help with the conditions they are living with. Indeed, some are looking after some very disabled children. We do not believe that their needs are adequately met by the healthcare, social care or benefits systems. Some of these people are actually very elderly—the parents of the children who took Primodos. It would be a scandal if those people were to live their lives unable to access the redress they need and the outcome they deserve. After all, the harm was caused not by them, but by the state.

In the case of these three interventions, there is a moral and ethical responsibility to provide ex gratia payments in respect of the avoidable damage that occurred. That responsibility falls on the state and the manufacturers of the products in question. The schemes that would be established through this proposed new clause would provide discretionary payments, and each of the three schemes would have tailored eligibility criteria.

The payments the schemes make would not be intended to cover the cost of services that are already available free of charge, such as healthcare and social security payments. They would be for other needs—for example, the cost of travel to medical appointments. We have met and talked to many of those people, and they have said that it is a significant cost burden. The payments might be for respite breaks or emergency payments where a parent has had to stop work to cover care. These redress schemes would not be in place of litigation, nor will they be to deliver compensation. People should retain the right to take legal action if they wish to obtain compensation—of course they should; that is in our law. The schemes I am talking about should be set up in such a way that they can be incorporated into the wider redress agency that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke about, once it is established.

These people have suffered for decades. They have tried to obtain compensation through the courts. That action has failed in the case of valproate and Primodos, although I am aware that a new Primodos action is under way. I have been told by solicitors that, in fact, the report does not in any way affect that action. There have been some awards and settlements in the case of mesh, but legal action takes time, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. It creates added stress and much more personal cost can be involved.

I believe that a measure of a decent society is how well it looks after those who have suffered harm, especially when that harm was avoidable. From having met many hundreds of people who have suffered and heard from many more, I am clear that help is needed and deserved. People should not be made to wait any longer. I hope my noble friend the Minister will agree with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, to conclude the debate on his amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I think this has been an excellent debate. I fully accept, as my noble friend Lady Thornton said, that my Amendment 122 covers a much wider area than Amendment 123, which focuses on the specific issues relating to the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.

My Amendment 122 was definitely a probing amendment, because the current situation in relation to clinical negligence is wholly unsatisfactory. It combines the bureaucracy and slowness which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to in relation to Windrush and she is absolutely right to draw parallels. It combines a hugely frustrating process for patients and their relatives with a system that increasingly becomes ever more expensive for the NHS. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, was not going to be drawn on these wider considerations, but the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord O’Shaughnessy, have both dealt with these—we know that it is a very complex issue, but surely, at the end of the day, we have to recognise that the current system simply is not working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with my noble friend, but I think it is on page 34—but then, of course, I might have an old edition of the Bill as well, just to confuse things.

The reason for supporting this is the unease about provisions in Clause 27 and Schedule 1. The Delegated Powers Committee concluded that

“in the absence of a full justification … allowing the ingredients of criminal offences … and … the penalties for existing offences to be set by delegated legislation”

amounts to “inappropriate delegations of power”. The Constitution Committee said:

“We have concluded previously that ‘the creation of criminal offences through delegated powers is constitutionally unacceptable’, save for exceptional circumstances. The delegated powers to create and adjust criminal offences in this Bill are constitutionally unacceptable.”


The Minister has made certain modifications, but I think the general principle still holds good.

The guidance to be issued under paragraph 13 of the schedule is likely to be extensive, including: the imposition of a monetary penalty; the notices to the person it is proposed to fine and the grounds for so doing; the representations that have been made; the appeals process; and the consequences of non-payment. As my noble friend said, lines 9 and 10 on page 34 provides that

“The Secretary of State must have regard to the guidance or revised guidance published under this paragraph”.


Given that the Secretary of State is the person publishing the guidance, it is puzzling that he or she is required only to “have regard to” the very guidance that he or she has published—hence my noble friend’s amendment to require the Secretary of State to “act in accordance with” the guidance. I look forward to hearing from the Minister as to why the Bill is drafted to give the Secretary of State wider discretion on that.

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I speak very briefly to support this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, have covered the argument extremely well. As the noble Lord said just now, the guidance is produced by the Secretary of State but, when you look at it in practice, it says that the Secretary of State “must have regard to” the guidance—that is, can take note of it but does not have to follow it.

I am a doctor and am used to following guidelines. If I do not follow the guidelines, I am liable to be reported; if I do not follow them for any reason in the management of a patient, I am expected to write down as to why I did not follow them. I am not expected to take note of it or have regard to it—I am expected to follow it. The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, addresses exactly that point: why is the Secretary of State not asked to follow the guidelines which he or she drafted?

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 12th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Government’s amendment establishing the patient safety commissioner. This is highly significant and a great tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and her team. I should also declare an interest I must declare an interest as a member of the GMC board.

The noble Baroness’s report, First Do No Harm, is a stark and moving account of how thousands of patients were let down in a serious and life-changing way. I go back to her report because she found that the healthcare system, in which she included the NHS, private providers, regulators, professional bodies, and pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, was disjointed, siloed, unresponsive and defensive. It does not adequately recognise that patients are its raison d’être. Those are telling points, which led the noble Baroness to recommend the appointment of a patient safety commissioner, an independent and proactive public leader with a statutory responsibility to champion the value of listening to patients and promoting users’ perspectives in seeking improvements to patient safety. That is welcome and it will be essential that the person who is appointed is robust, fearless and commands wide respect. Their independence needs to be assured. I hope also that the appointment will be subject to Select Committee scrutiny and I should be glad if the Minister can comment on that.

Picking up on a point that the noble Baroness made, I should also be grateful if I could have a little more explanation about what is meant by relevant bodies, as defined in the schedule. It is clearly important that bodies with responsibilities in relation to patient safety are expected to respond to a report or recommendation made by the commissioner. Can the Minister give a broad indication of the relevant bodies? Also, in relation to the private health sector, my reading is that this is covered by the Bill and that the schedule provides for that. Can the Minister respond?

Overall, however, I commend the Minister on the Government’s response to this significant recommendation by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]]

My Lords, these amendments are a testament to the incredibly hard work and perseverance of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. They have all worked hard to get to this point. The report, First Do No Harm, must be a turning point in driving up better outcomes.

I hope that in the response to these proposals it will be helpful to have reassurance that the new post will be adequately resourced, the timeframe for fulfilling the appointment is rapid, and, subsequently, regulatory requirements can be defined and relevant statutory instruments drawn up. The independence of the post-holder is crucial. The person must be able to work across all the different and varied organisations and structures that have responsibility for patients, directly or indirectly. That will require promotion to all organisations that they have a duty to co-operate and collaborate with the commissioner to ensure that early warning signals are picked up and heeded through processes that are light on bureaucracy yet rapidly responsive in order to pick up signals. We cannot have years of accumulation of distressed patients. When things start not to be right, those amber warning lights must start flashing.

I urge the Minister to ensure that the remit of the commissioner is as wide as possible. For example, the coroners’ reports that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, referred to have not had adequate enforcement by others sometimes. The reports made powerful recommendations but it was found that those responsible for enforcing them have been so slow to act that the proposals have effectively gathered dust.

In previous debates, I raised the need for the yellow card scheme to be updated—opened for easy use by patients themselves, who may wish to report adverse outcomes. The wording of the Bill that I found most helpful and welcome is the part stating that the role

“does not prevent the Commissioner considering individual cases and drawing conclusions about them for the purpose of, or in the context of, considering a general issue”.

Can the Minister make sure that the reporting mechanisms are open to patients and do not hit a hurdle when they try to report to a clinician who does not recognise the full import of they are saying?

To conclude, I reiterate my congratulations to all, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and her team, and look forward to the next phase of working with her and others as this important development moves forwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who rightly emphasises the importance of accessible and understandable legislation in this area. There are two issues. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern said, there is the question of the sunset clause and the question of the preparation of consolidated legislation.

On Amendment 2 and a sunset clause, I believe that we should reserve the imposition of sunset clauses for legislation where we anticipate that those powers may not be needed in future. This is not the case with this legislation. With the end of the transition period we require our own domestic legislation for medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices, so these regulations and these powers will be required.

The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, quite legitimately, about the framework—the rather skeletal nature of the Bill as introduced to this House—must be dealt with in other ways, and in the group led by Amendment 4, we have substantive changes which make it a framework rather than simply a skeleton, and give us greater assurance about how the powers are structured in the Bill. I hope that if she reflects on it the noble Baroness will realise that shutting down these powers three years after Royal Assent would be a very taxing imposition. It would probably mean that in less than a year and a half, Ministers would be thinking about the reintroduction of legislation. We would risk the powers in this Bill being shut down in order for a Bill very like it to be introduced in a couple of years’ time. I see no intrinsic purpose in that, so I cannot support Amendment 2.

I do however want to specifically refer to the other issue of consolidation and Amendments 26, 39 and 63, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. There is a general proposition that people agree that, notwithstanding that additional regulations are going to have to be made in the weeks and months ahead using these powers, they will continue for the time being to be a complex mix of powers. Some will use this legislation, some will be in retained EU law and some will be in existing and other statutes and regulations.

What we want, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern quite rightly emphasised, is legislation in this important area that is understandable and accessible. These are not regulations for the benefit of lawyers; they are regulations for the benefit of practitioners, so they need to be very clear. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, helpfully and kindly referred to the points I made in Committee about the role of the Law Commission. As I understand it, indeed, I think it is well to remember two things about this. First, Law Commission members are the experts in the process of codification and simplification. Consolidation of legislation is valuable, but it is even better for it to be codified and simplified so that the end result is far more accessible and understandable to practitioners.

So I would very much recommend that we proceed by asking the Government to put the areas of human medicines and medical device regulation, and perhaps veterinary medicine as well, into the work programme of the Law Commission. As I understand it, the 14th programme of work for the Law Commission will be the subject of discussion between the Government and the Law Commission up to the spring of 2022. The work programme of course will happen subsequently. So I do not think any rigid timetable should be imposed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would not insist upon a three-year limit or his amendment for this purpose because I hope that, at the end of this process with the Law Commission, we will end up with something much better that is brought forward as a Law Commission Bill—which can have an expedited process of scrutiny and passage through both Houses. As a former Leader of the House of Commons, and therefore responsible for the Government’s legislative programme, I say that all the evidence tells me that, if a requirement to insert a Bill into the Government’s legislative programme can be avoided, it should be.

We have been there with a Law Commission Bill on the regulation of clinical professions and professions allied to medicine, which is still waiting for legislation, because it included not only codification and simplification but substantive changes to the policy—so I am afraid that it is still waiting. So let us not go down that route; let us do the very sensible thing rightly initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, which is call for consolidation, making sure that it is not about changing policy but about making the legislation work effectively for the benefit of the various practitioners and those who depend on them. And let us work through the Law Commission. I hope that, if the Minister were to tell the House that he and the Government were willing to proceed in that direction, without a timetable in place, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would not press his amendment when the time comes.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I see this as a group of amendments in two parts. The argument for consolidated legislation from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, was very ably supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and I very much support it. For those working in the health service or in industry, trying to wrestle with all the elements of legislation that cover health is very difficult indeed, and the case for consolidating legislation every so often is a very powerful one. I very much hope that the Government will take note of this, bearing in mind of course that there have been strong arguments from NHS England for a further NHS reorganisation Bill, which might be coming within a short space of time. On that issue in particular, the reorganisation of the NHS, the need to consolidate legislation following such a Bill becomes very persuasive indeed.

Where I do not really agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is on his remarks on Amendment 2 and his suggestion of a sunset clause. He argued that the problem with that is that you shut down the powers and therefore the Government need to produce another Bill, because we obviously need a regulatory regime. Sticking to the three years in my noble friend’s amendment would mean that work would have to start within 18 months. That does not argue against the principle of a sunset clause, although there can be debate about the length of time in which the new Bill needs to be enacted.

The fact is that this Bill conveys a huge number of delegated powers to Ministers. In a pungent analysis, the University of Birmingham points out that, while delegated powers may be needed to ensure responsiveness to the EU transition period and to meet the challenges of technology change, they should not be used indefinitely or relied on to implement matters of policy. This is the problem. If we take this Bill and we do not have some changes in the future, Ministers ever after will be able to ram changes to medicines and medical devices regulation through the House, and the amount of scrutiny in relation to secondary legislation is limited.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was very clear in criticising Ministers for failing to provide a sufficient justification for parts of the Bill adopting a skeletal approach. The recent report from the House of Lords Constitution Committee also said that it recognises

“that the existing powers to amend these complex regulatory regimes will cease to have effect on 31 December 2020 and that alternative arrangements are required. If the Government is unable to specify the principles according to which it intends to amend and supplement the existing law, the delegated powers in the Bill should be subject to sunset clauses.”

That surely must be right.

At Second Reading the Minister suggested that sunset clauses would emasculate the Bill, and in Committee he said that a sunset clause

“will not change the very good reasons why delegated powers are necessary.”—[Official Report, 19/10/12; col. GC 327.]

I think we come then to the fundamental argument: that many noble Lords disagree with the extent of delegation that is going to be given to Ministers for all time. The only proper defence against that is to agree to the kind of amendment my noble friend has proposed in relation to a sunset clause. For that reason, I very strongly support her.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, in the past I have had the privilege of working with two pharmaceutical companies, a US pharmaceutical company Upjohn and Reckitt pharmaceuticals. I think that as a country we face a unique opportunity at this point caused by Brexit and a situation where we have a major industry which has all the potential to be a world leader. But this point in time is going to go away unless we act. This is a watershed Bill. It creates an opportunity to enhance the role of the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The industry and all of us should want the UK to be an attractive market for investment in medicines, medical devices and therapies for all our UK patients. It creates an opportunity to make significant improvements in UK clinical research environments and, very importantly, it increases the commercial trial activity to make the UK the number one destination for life sciences supporting UK public health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I disagree with this amendment. I had the privilege of being the Chairman of Ways and Means and Senior Deputy Speaker in the other House from 1992 to 1997—possibly, legislatively, one of the most challenging periods. I certainly found that MPs were highly creative in their interpretation of the rules of debate and in holding the Government to account.

Noble Lords have only to read Erskine May to see that we have two procedures for SIs that are normal and have been with us for decades: the negative procedure, where no amendments can be taken in your Lordships’ House; and the affirmative resolution. The affirmative resolution is not just a weak tool that puts us on the side; it is a very powerful tool if used properly by Members of Parliament and those of your Lordships’ House who take an interest in these matters. They can ensure that the Government of the day have to listen.

Frankly, I find that the super-affirmative procedure does no more, really, than involve an additional stage of scrutiny where Parliament has considered a proposal for a statutory instrument before the statutory instrument is formally presented. Today this procedure is used for statutory instruments that are considered to need a particularly high level of scrutiny. Quite frankly, we have Select Committees, in the other House in particular, dedicated to particular departments, and there is a very active Select Committee on health matters.

In addition, yes, there are some specialised categories of statutory instruments that are used for those particular purposes, and they can be considered under the super-affirmative procedure. But these statutory instruments usually amend or repeal Acts of Parliament. Examples would include legislative reform orders, localism orders, public bodies orders, regulatory reform orders and remedial orders. It is not usual to have them as part of the primary legislative process.

It is time that we as politicians understood that this country will be successful only if we get on and understand the needs of British industry. It has to have some certainty that things are going to proceed at pace, not be delayed even further because some noble Lords feel that they want to have another bite of the cherry. We already had quite enough bites, in my judgment, on this Bill as we worked through it, and it is being done very thoroughly. It has been done in Committee and is being done on Report. But we have to understand that this all adds to delay and, even worse, possible confusion in the commercial world.

I think adequate procedures are already available. All this does is stretch the thing out for very little marginal benefit. I personally will vote against this proposal with enthusiasm.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I must say that I very much disagree with the noble Lord’s remarks. If we want certainty, we need legislation that is well grounded and which has had thorough scrutiny in Parliament. The problem with this Bill is that it essentially gives a blank cheque to Ministers to change the regulatory regime for medicines and medical devices. If this was just to deal with the aftermath of Brexit, that, of course, would be understandable. But it was made clear in Committee and at Second Reading that the Government are wedded to this way of doing legislation. As the Minister said in Committee,

“this is a modern and fast-changing industry … we may still need to preserve our ability to amend and update regulations.”—[Official Report, 19/10/20; col. GC 328.]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred to two of our most distinguished Select Committees. We need to return to what our Constitution Committee said:

“This is a skeleton bill containing extensive delegated powers, covering a range of significant policy matters, with few constraints on the extent of the regulatory changes that could be made … The Government has not provided the exceptional justification required for this skeleton approach.”


As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has said, the Government have form. We are increasingly seeing the use of skeleton Bills and Henry VIII clauses. We really must come to a point where we say to the Government that we will not put up with this any longer.

I listened to the Minister in the last debate: what did he offer the House in respect of further scrutiny? It seemed to me he offered a debate or two, and that was it. The Government do not have an answer; they are refusing to budge on a principle which I believe is fundamentally wrong.

The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, talked with joy about the effectiveness of affirmative statutory instruments. This is nonsense. I think eight SIs have been defeated in your Lordships’ House in history; the last one led the Government to threaten to abolish the House of Lords. Unfortunately, the affirmative procedure is hardly any better than the negative procedure, and they do not allow this House to really exert any change on the orders going through.

We have to stand up on this matter. It is much more important and much wider than the issue of medicines regulation. I very much support the amendment moved so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey.

[Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]]

My Lords, these amendments, led by my noble friend Lord Sharkey with eminent cross-party support, replace the affirmative procedure for delegated powers in the Bill with the super-affirmative procedure.

Because of the skeleton nature of the Bill, outlined in the previous group, it is key to ensure that Parliament is able to properly scrutinise regulations made under the Bill. The super-affirmative procedure, which affords a committee of either House the opportunity to comment on a draft of the regulations and make representations, is in our view the best way to do it.

The past year has made clearer than ever the need for outward-facing health policy with public health and safety at its heart. The regulations brought forward under this Bill are central to doing this, and the highest level of scrutiny is needed to ensure their success.

One of the first things I had to learn when joining the House was the sovereignty of the House. My 10 years in your Lordships’ House have taught me to spot Henry VIII powers and call them out. As the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said, these amendments are hardly revolutionary, so I urge the Minister to accept them.

We need well-grounded legislation, and this Bill gives the department carte blanche to do what it likes. The amendments tabled by my noble friend give Members of the House the opportunity to scrutinise in a proper way and that, after all, is what the public expect of us.

--- Later in debate ---

Transparency is, of course, critical to open government and it should be welcomed, but I understand this as being retrospective. Is that right? Is this included in regulations, perhaps, where there will be an important opportunity to debate signal detection to prevent harm, and whether these regulations would be prospective measures? Avoiding harm, rather than actually seeing what has happened in the past, seems much more preferable. Can that be part of this whole exercise of what we will discuss in regulations?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. She posed a very tough question to the Minister. I could not help reflecting on her report and the issues around surgical mesh, where we clearly had a situation where for some women the surgical mesh operation was successful and seemed to be effective, but for others it had devastating consequences.

The question of a threshold is surely very important. I doubt very much that the medical device regulation we have is up to dealing with it. It would be good to know from the Minister how the Government will take forward discussions in this area, which of course involves ethical as much as safety considerations. Generally, though, I very much welcome the government amendments. I think that my noble friend’s amendments add to the debate.

I have always wanted the UK to be safe in terms of medicine and medical devices and outcomes, but I also want this country to be attractive to pharmaceutical and medical device companies to research, develop and launch their products in the UK. The UK’s record in the current crisis, in the development of both vaccines and treatments, is second to none. I hope that it will be a huge boost to our future attractiveness. But as I have raised on a number of occasions, one of the big problems we have in this country is the general slowness of the NHS to adopt new medicines and new treatments. If we really are to be attractive and have a favourable climate, we have to get around that. We have to be seen, particularly post Brexit, as not only a place that has fantastic scientists and clinicians, and a very good science base—in fact, a brilliant one—but where the NHS is itself innovative, forward thinking and keen to use new medicines and treatments. That is a huge challenge. It would be good to hear the Minister respond and spell out how he thinks we can make this country safe, but attractive too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this amendment would require the appropriate authority to have regard to the protection of the environment when making regulations about human medicines. We have left the EU and need to be sure that our replacement regulations are fit for purpose. Many of us have spent a lot of time checking that these replacements are in such a fit state; but, while the health and safety of patients remain paramount, it is reasonable and, indeed, important, given the climate crisis, to consider the environmental implications of any policy stemming from these regulations.

The manufacture of human and veterinary medicines, and medical devices, does not happen in an environmental vacuum. Manufacturers have a duty to protect their environment—and manufacturers of medicines will need to be open about how they deal with chemical and other waste. I live in Cornwall where oestrogen has found its way into local rivers, ecosystems and oysters. Wastewater from pharmaceutical manufacturers could also find its way into local waterways. Will the Minister outline how this is dealt with by regulators, and how it is covered by the Bill?

Much waste from pharmaceutical plants is toxic and dealt with appropriately by manufacturers but, in a Brexit world, the regulation regime will have different regulations from the very strict ones that applied when we had to follow EU regulations. We can buy our medicines and medical devices from all over the world; we know that not everyone has the same high environmental standards governing manufacture that we have. What criteria are appropriate in the commissioning and purchasing of medicines from the rest of the world? Can the Minister please outline for us the nature of discussions with regulators about these issues?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this debate follows a very interesting one in Committee, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, posed some searching questions about the potential for designing new drugs that are less harmful for the environment, whether in their composition, their impact when they escape into the environment, or in their packaging. Today, she also argues that the expectation of this approach should be built into legislation.

In Committee, the noble Baroness gave some very interesting examples. I was particularly interested to hear that in Sweden—

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We appear to have lost connection with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. We will give it a few seconds. We have now reconnected but we missed about 30 seconds of his speech; perhaps the noble Lord could take us back about 30 seconds.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

I thank the noble Lord; that is a temptation to be eagerly accepted. I was referring back to what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said in Committee and the example in Sweden of Stockholm county council, which grades medicines on their environmental effects. Doctors can choose to prescribe a drug that is less harmful in relation to the environment where that option exists.

We have also had the 2014 report by UK Water Industry Research, which found that in most of the 160 sewage treatment works studied, several common drugs were present in the final effluent in concentrations high enough to potentially affect ecosystems. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, referred just now to the amount of pharmaceutical effluence entering waterways, and according to a 2018 study by the Delft Institute for Water Education, that could increase by two-thirds before mid-century.

In Committee, my noble friend Lady Wheeler referred to the Environment Agency also having found examples of contaminated hospital waste being illegally exported to developing countries such as Malaysia for disposal. What steps are we taking to prevent the illegal export of such waste and ensure that we dispose of our own waste in this country? There are also concerns about the use of incinerators for hospital waste and the health impacts on those living nearby. We must ask whether the Government are doing enough to ensure that chemists and GPs’ surgeries provide a secure depository for unused medicines, so that they do not contaminate the water supply by being washed down the sink or ending up in landfill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said today that the Government’s approach has been to say that legislation is already on the statute book regarding the impact on the environment more broadly, including legislation to address the impact of producing and disposing of manufactured goods such as medical devices. But there is a persuasive argument that we should go further and that it is appropriate that in this Bill on medicines and medical devices there should be a way of ensuring that the environmental impact is not a damaging one. I hope that the Minister can respond with a positive reflection that this is an area that needs further exploration.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, when considering Amendment 7, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, I draw the attention of noble Lords to our earlier discussion on the government amendments to this clause, introducing the requirement that safeguarding public health is the overarching objective when making regulations. The clause sets out a number of important factors that the appropriate authority must have regard to, and it is important to note that this is by no means a closed list of factors to be taken into account when making regulatory changes. I recognise that the intention is to put this important issue at the forefront of our minds, and that the factors involved in environmental protection, while broader than the remit of this Bill, may indeed be relevant as something to have regard to—and in those situations, this will happen. Let me explain.

In Committee, the noble Baroness raised important points about tackling the causes of environmental damage and listening to relevant stakeholders. As she knows, the Bill now includes Clause 43, which states that a public consultation must be carried out before regulations are made. This would provide an appropriate platform for relevant stakeholders in the production, distribution and consumption of human medicines, including manufacturers, healthcare practitioners and patients—and the noble Baroness will surely think also of campaigners—to raise their concerns and provide suggestions regarding regulations, which may include factors involving environmental protection. We would all agree that considering the environmental impact of what we do is important, but the power in Clause 1 is restricted to amending and supplementing the law relating to human medicines.

However, as I have reassured the noble Baroness previously, that law does not stand in isolation. The regulations made under this Bill must be considered within the wider context of other existing legislation that makes provision for environmental protection and access to medicines and healthcare services. The collective picture of legislation across the statute book ensures that environmental concerns are taken seriously. It includes provisions around packaging, safe management of medicines waste and medicines disposal. An example is the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which makes provision for the safe management of waste. This Act, which must be complied with by community pharmacies, imposes a duty of care on any person who disposes of controlled waste to take all reasonable steps to ensure that it is not disposed of in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health.

I also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on that point with regard to the management of waste and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on the fact that the Government have made a clear commitment that, post Brexit, our environmental standards will not be reduced. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, pointed out, the upcoming environment Bill will be a further opportunity to debate many of those matters in detail.

On the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, of why the environmental impact of veterinary medicines has been included in the Bill, whereas the environmental impact of human medicines is not specifically provided for, the situation with veterinary medicines is slightly different. The environmental safety aspects of the regulatory framework on veterinary medicines relate to their potential impact on the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and their flora and fauna—soil, micro-organisms, fungi, algae, plants, invertebrates, fish, et cetera—so veterinary medicines occupy a slightly different space in our regulatory framework. I also point out to her that animals receiving veterinary medicines form part of the human food supply chain, so that is also taken into account.

I hope that the noble Baroness has heard sufficient from me to be persuaded that, while the issue of environmental protection is of course vital, the law in this area is already well established and, in the light of this, that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

13: Clause 2, page 2, line 32, at end insert “, or
(o) the use of tissues or cells (within the meanings given by regulation 5(1) of the Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) Regulations 2007 (S.I. 2007/1523)) in relation to human medicines.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable regulations under Clause 1(1) to make provision about the use of human tissues or cells in relation to human medicines.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to move my amendment, which follows constructive and very helpful discussions with the Government. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Ahmad, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and their officials for their help, and to my fellow sponsors, the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Northover, and the noble Lords, Lord Ribeiro and Lord Alton, for the huge support they have given. I should also mention the enormous help I have had from Victoria Ledwidge of the end transplant abuse in China campaign.

The world is increasingly aware of China’s forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience. This horrific crime of forcibly removing the organs from living victims—a process leading to inevitable murder— has recently been found by the China Tribunal to be happening extensively.

Millions of Chinese citizens are currently detained in labour camps. UN experts estimate that at least 1 million Uighurs are being held in camps in the region of Xinjiang. Elsewhere throughout China, other ethnic and religious minorities are also being held in labour camps, such as Tibetan Buddhists, Falun Gong practitioners and Christians. This modern-day slavery has been entering the UK supply chain, and there is no doubt that we are currently complicit. I must say that I welcomed the Statement made today by the Foreign Secretary.

Last year, the China Tribunal concluded:

“Forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and that Falun Gong practitioners have been one – and probably the main – source of organ supply”


and that:

“In regard to the Uyghurs the Tribunal had evidence of medical testing on a scale that could allow them, amongst other uses, to become an ‘organ bank’.”


I hope the Government will seek to put pressure on the World Health Organization to take this seriously.

Domestically, the Bill provides an opportunity to prevent British complicity in such crimes and to send an important message to other countries. My amendment is designed to deal with gaps in current UK human tissue legislation. Currently, the Human Tissue Act does not require appropriate consent for imported human tissue. In addition, imported human tissue for use in medical research does not require traceability. Currently, neither the Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) Regulations nor the Human Tissue Act require appropriate consent for imported human tissues for use in medicines. My amendment gives powers to Ministers to put this right. I should explain that the words “tissues” and “cells” are terminology which encompass all the human material that is used for the purposes of medicines. This includes organs.

The amendment would not include the prohibition of the dreadful travelling circus of Real Bodies exhibitions, nor would it include medical equipment manufactured and exported from the UK for the purpose of extracting or preserving human organs if exported to China. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, will come back to that point, and I know he has had some very helpful discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Penn.

None the less, the passing of my amendment would be a significant action. By giving Ministers the power to make regulations, this is a specific act by the UK in relation to the abhorrent practices in China that I have spoken of. Of course, we need to see those regulations introduced and passed through Parliament. But, internationally, the UK’s action will be seen as a marker and a real signal to other countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this has been a short but incredibly important debate. In addition to the noble Lords that I have already thanked, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and my noble friend Lord Collins, for their sterling support throughout the passage of this Bill. It is much appreciated.

I stress that this amendment is not the definitive response to the horrific abuse taking place in China. It is enabling legislation, and there is much to do, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said. We need greater vigilance over exports. Transplant tourism is another area of real concern.

The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke about the HTA and its rather relaxed approach to the “Real Bodies” exhibitions. I find it extremely embarrassing that one of these exhibitions took place in Birmingham, but I am glad that the Commonwealth Games are coming to the city next year and that it has adopted a robust ethical policy which, if extended to the National Exhibition Centre in the future, would ensure that we would not see these exhibitions again.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has identified a number of other areas, to which the Minister responded to today, and the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, spoke very forcefully about the role of the World Health Organization. Again, I am very glad that the Government and the FCO in particular are talking closely to the WHO about it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, sent a number of very important messages at the end: the revision and toughening up of the HTA’s code of practice and licensing procedures; and she talked about exports of medicines and devices. These are all welcome. However, we cannot be complacent. As my noble friend Lord Collins says, we cannot as a country show any tolerance towards these barbaric acts. This amendment is significant, particularly because it shows that the UK, with the support of government Ministers, is taking it seriously, and I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have helped to make this happen.

Amendment 13 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]]

My Lords, on 4 November in Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lady Jolly introduced amendments designed to limit the ambit of the information-gathering powers under Clause 3, which deals with falsified medicines. I raised the subject at Second Reading but was unable to be present for the debate in Grand Committee.

The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said in resisting the amendments:

“We also want to explore creative uses of information as long as they are for public interest purposes. Therefore, we do not want to constrain or limit options ahead of engagement with stakeholders.”


It was not at all clear what the Minister meant by “exploring creative uses of information”, and in fact it was quite concerning given that these have not been set out anywhere in any consultation document. However, he went on to say:

“I should make it very clear that the overarching principles of the Bill as set out in Clause 1 also apply to our powers here. The scope of the purposes mentioned is not unfettered. The appropriate authority must be satisfied that regulations dealing with anything under Clause 3—not just around how the information will be used—will promote the health and safety of the public. In making that assessment, the appropriate authority is required to have regard to the three considerations discussed previously in Committee.”—[Official Report, 4/11/20; col. GC 326.]


Of course, as the result of the very welcome government Amendment 4, the safeguarding of public health is the key objective, and by Amendment 6, Clause 1(3) has been tightened up too. However, having carefully considered these amendments and the Minister’s previous response, I must still question his interpretation of Clause 3 and how it interacts with Clause 1. Clause 3(1)(b) currently says that the regulations may make provision about

“the use, retention and disclosure, for any purpose to do with human medicines, of information collected for the purpose of preventing the supply of falsified human medicines.”

At best there is a conflict between the two clauses, and at worst Clause 3 is open-ended and gives the Government far too much discretion in the scope of regulations under Clause 3.

In the discussions we have had with the Minister between Committee and Report—for which I am grateful—it became clearer that we need to ensure that this information regarding falsified medicines is used for limited purposes. The Minister cited a whole range of possible uses for the data, which came as a considerable surprise. As I said earlier, there has been no industry consultation, despite considerable ambition on the department’s behalf. That is why in this amendment we have tied the purpose to “ensuring patient safety”. What possible objection could there be to this limitation? Why would the Government want any wider scope, especially if the Minister believes that Clause 1 already provides a limitation?

I have now seen the brief announcement issued by the department on the consultation on the regulations to be carried out on a new national scheme. It says:

“We are committed to public consultation around the need and details of any national scheme, as well as a specific consultation on the use of data collected as part of any scheme.”


That lacks detail, to say the least.

Many noble Lords have been briefed by the Company Chemists’ Association about the commercial sensitivity of this data. As my noble friend Lady Jolly said in Grand Committee:

“The Department of Health and Social Care already has access to a very wide range of data on the sales of medicines, and their use in the UK, under the Health Service Products (Provision and Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2018. These require manufacturers, wholesalers and pharmacies to provide summaries of products sold and prices paid. Ministers can request more detailed information if required.”—[Official Report, 4/11/20; col. GC 324.]


Given this access and the known sensitivities about falsified medicines directive data, it is unclear why the department has included this sweeping provision in Clause 3(1)(b). I described this as “legislative creep” at Second Reading. It goes well beyond the EU falsified medicines directive of 2011 and the associated delegated regulation of 2016. Of course, this was not acknowledged in the Commons by the Minister, Jo Churchill. As a result of the efforts of several noble Lords, the changes proposed to the FMD provisions are now out in the open—but that does not make it any more acceptable.

This might seem rather a specialised part of the Bill, but clarity about the scope of Clause 3 is vital if we are to have confidence that a suitable scheme for falsified medicines data will be put in place that does not go well beyond the current scheme in terms of the sensitive data that is collected and used. I hope the Minister can do better than last time in giving greater assurance about the ambit of Clause 3 so that I do not need to divide the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Clement -Jones, and my noble friend Lady Thornton. I urge the Minister to respond, as the noble Lord asked, on how Clause 3 will actually be used. It did not help that the Explanatory Notes made no mention of what the noble Lord described tonight and at Second Reading as “legislative creep”.

We have had submissions from a number of organisations that make the point that the wording goes beyond the current EU legislation, which was carefully implemented after extensive consultation with the relevant bodies. That is from the Company Chemists’ Association. The ABPI said that the falsified medicines directive was introduced as a barrier to counterfeit and falsified medicines entering the supply chain, thus reducing the potential risk of harm to patients, that the ABPI and its members have worked to fund and implement the falsified medicines directive, and that any future considerations under this clause must include full consultation with industry.

So there is general concern in the industry about how the clause will be used. We know that the department already has access to a wide range of data on medicines sales and use in the UK under the Health Service Products (Provision and Disclosure of Information) Regulations. Given this and the known sensitivities around falsified medicines data, I am still unclear why the department wants to extend the purposes for which data is collected under a future UK system. I know that we were very privileged—

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, unfortunately the noble Lord cut out again briefly. If he could rewind about 30 seconds, that would be appreciated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

I am sorry, I have had a very poor connection tonight. Can you hear me now? All I was going to say was this: we were privileged to have a discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and his officials before Christmas. The impression I had was that this is regarded as a useful clause to be used at some point in the future when a clearer purpose has emerged. I do not think that this is the way we should go forward. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I hope the Minister can give some assurances tonight about how this clause and the information stored will be used.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, who moved this amendment so movingly. This debate has gone on for many years.

It has been found by parents that medical cannabis can help some children who have multiple seizures due to epilepsy. I need to know: has NICE approved it? If it is waiting for more research, there will have to be more people using medical cannabis so that the information can be collected. If it is helping, doctors who understand the problems need to be the people who prescribe it. It should be carefully monitored. If it gives better quality of life, why should it not be prescribed? I hope the Minister will do his best to see that it is.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am really grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Field, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Walmsley, for sponsoring this amendment and for the powerful speeches they have given.

Last week, I heard Hannah Deacon talk on the “Today” programme about her son Alfie and the devastating consequences of Brexit and the impact of the inability to import Bedrocan from Holland. I know the Government have been active, and I very much hope the Minister will be able to report progress tonight.

That is the immediate issue, but of course there is then the long-standing issue that, when Parliament agreed to the legalisation of medical cannabis under prescription, there was a distinct impression that NHS patients would receive medical cannabis where appropriate. It is very clear that the NHS is not prepared to do that. The small number of prescriptions and the approach of the various bodies that advise the health service on commissioning make it abundantly clear that, unless Ministers intervene, patients will simply not be able to get these products in a legal way.

I say to Ministers that, with the campaigns, it is obvious there will be increasing noise, increasing concern. They really will have to step in and find a way of getting access to these products for patients. It is inevitable that it will happen, and it is better than they do this now rather than wait for another three, four or five years. I remind them that, when the legislation went through, the Home Secretary at the time said:

“We have now delivered on our promises … we will work with the NHS to help support specialists in making the right prescribing decisions.”


That simply has not happened.

I suggest four approaches: first, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Medical Cannabis under Prescription believes that the only way to help families at the moment, and to make sure the policy does not stall completely, is to set up a small fund called something like the medical cannabis access fund, which can be used to help those families, until the blockage on NHS prescription eases.

Secondly, we have to come to the issue of research. I know the Minister is frustrated—he repeated this today—because he thinks the companies producing these products should come forward and undertake clinical trials and tests. I am not an expert, but I have listened very carefully to noble Lords and to advice that I have received, which suggests that randomised control trials are very difficult in this area. In that case, surely the Government should revisit the NHS England report, Barriers to Accessing Cannabis-based Products for Medicinal Use on NHS Prescriptions. The report looked at the issue of research, and said that there should be randomised controlled trials but, alongside this:

“NHS England and NHS Improvement and NIHR in conjunction with the specialist network will work together to determine an appropriate alternative study design that will enable evidence generation for those patients who cannot be enrolled into a standard RCT.”


I gather that this has not happened. The Minister really should inquire into this. It would basically be an observational study; it would allow medical cannabis to be prescribed for large numbers of people and for proper research to be undertaken. I suggest to him that it would be a way forward, so that the current frustration of so many patients is responded to in a sympathetic but also practical way.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, we started this debate today with widespread plaudits to the Government for listening to very strong campaigns to have a patient safety commissioner. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who has been so instrumental in this, commented on the importance of that person listening to patients. We have to draw the parallels here because we have heard—as a community, as a society, and as a Parliament—from the parents of children who desperately need these medicines but are unable to access them. Those patients are not being listened to. We really do have to ask ourselves the question of why that is happening and what kind of political block or ideological barrier exists so that we are not seeing action in this area when it is so clearly, urgently needed.

When we were talking about a patient safety commissioner, I commented on how effective campaigning has been in that area. There is also a very effective campaign called End Our Pain, which has been working with families trying to access this medicine. It has been doing a great job, but the Government have not been doing their job in delivering on the campaign. I give credit to the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, and all the other people who have signed this amendment, which is very much cross-party and across the House. As the noble Lord said, we have a division here—a human rights issue, referred to in the amendment tabled earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. People, or families, who can afford it, are able to access this medicine; those who need NHS support for it cannot. We should not be tolerating that situation in Britain at any time, particularly in 2021.

I have a direct question for the Minister. I have been looking at what assessment the Government might have made of the impact of current policies and the lack of financial support for vulnerable families. I should be happy to be corrected and perhaps told that an assessment is under way, but the most recent information that I was able to find was from September last year, when Liz Saville Roberts MP asked a Written Question in the other place about whether such an assessment had been made—and the answer was no. I will be brief, because the issues have been well set out by the noble Lord, Lord Field, and others. However, I ask the Government what assessment they have made of the impact of their current policies.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 14th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and I join her and other speakers in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for tabling the amendment, which I think is largely intended to start a debate and get some focus on this terribly important issue.

My approach to the whole issue of disinformation about harmful content on the internet is slightly different from those of some of the other speakers. We need to take the same approach as we do with the vaccine, which is to think about vaccination being better than treatment—prevention being better than cure. Ensuring good public communication, information and education about Covid and many other issues is the best possible way in which to take on misinformation, rather than after the fact—after the infection—and then trying to treat it. As soon as one starts trying to combat such messages, it is difficult to avoid repeating them. As any communications professional will tell you, you are then trapped in a difficult cycle of raising the issue up the agenda and raising it up the hashtags.

When we are talking about problems on the internet more generally, we need much broader education on media literacy and critical thinking throughout our education system. That will not help us in the immediate future but, when we are talking about Covid, we can think about the nature of the Government’s communications and public information campaigns that will, in effect, inoculate people against the disinformation so prevalent in cyberspace. We need calm, factual, often quite detailed information that will educate the public about what is going on.

It is telling that we have seen a great deal of hunger among the public for briefings involving senior scientific officers and advisers. Some of them now have their own fan clubs and T-shirts. There is a real hunger for that kind of quality of information with clear scientific facts. That needs to come from all levels of the Government, including the politicians, not just the technical people. Let us trust the public with more information, data and facts, and with more of the difficulties and uncertainties, than we do now.

If one looks at the messaging in countries such as New Zealand and Germany, one can see that the level of detail and facts, and the quality of the information, given to their publics is much better than ours. Nearly every time there is a major government announcement or bit of advice, I see good technical people, senior professors and consultants on social media screaming in frustration about the quality of the presentation, data and messaging. I am talking not just about the shape of the graphs being wrong or whatever; we need to get the whole of government communications much better. That is the best way in which to tackle all these issues.

We all, even those of us with a scientific background, have learned a great deal more about IgG versus IgM versus IgA antibodies. A huge amount of information is out there, as is a hunger among people to find it. We must make sure that the good sources are there. That is the best way to tackle this problem when it comes to Covid and, indeed, much more broadly.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this is an interesting debate and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Thornton. We know that there is a problem with vaccine uptake, which is linked to anti-vaccine sentiment—though not necessarily always.

Looking back over the past few months, I note that there was in November a survey by Savanta ComRes on behalf of ITV News that found that almost 70% of people in the UK would like to receive a vaccination. More recently, in December, the Royal Society for Public Health published a poll showing that 76% of people would take the vaccine but, significantly, that only 57% of people from BAME backgrounds would do so. There was also a lower response among lower-income groups.

No doubt the Minister will give us figures, but my understanding is that the initial results on vaccine uptake are encouraging. However, we cannot be complacent in the face of the pernicious anti-vaccine sentiment around. Even before the pandemic, vaccine hesitancy was described by the WHO as one of the top 10 threats to global health.

We are interested in what the Government are doing. Last month, we debated this issue and the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, the Leader of the House, referred to the work of a central government unit on it. I should like to hear from the Minister about what is happening. We clearly need strong pro-vaccination campaigns, and the majority of people who may be described as vaccine hesitant are not necessarily anti-vaccine. Most people who are hesitant can be persuaded by good public health messages.

However, as my noble friend and other noble Lords have said, there has been a huge amount of misinformation across social media in the past few months. This is obviously cited by survey respondents as an area of concern when it comes to levels of trust in those delivering public health messages. As Scientists for Labour pointed out, since the recovery from the false findings around the MMR vaccine and autism from Mr Andrew Wakefield, the UK overall now ought to be in a good place when it comes to routine vaccine uptake. For example, the HPV vaccine has a consistent uptake of between 80% and 85%, which is an excellent return for a vaccine that is not part of early childhood schedules.

We do not have too much in the way of well-organised anti-vaccine groups, unlike the USA or, indeed, even the Republic of Ireland, so the likelihood is that the UK population will show less hesitancy about recently introduced vaccines compared with other countries. But the level of misinformation out there is high and we have to learn lessons from other recent vaccine scares. Clearly the Government have a huge challenge in making sure that the uptake of the vaccine is as high as possible—which is why I welcome this debate and the amendment, and very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am married to a retired general practitioner.

I congratulate the noble Baroness on her proposed new clause. Whether the detail is correct is another matter, but the principle that she is promoting is absolutely right. I make my observations as someone who, before he came into politics, was a senior director in the fifth-largest advertising agency in the world. I was actually handling the UK Government’s COI account—that is, the general one for specific purposes.

I have four observations. First, all misinformation must be refuted immediately, wherever it occurs—whether it is in the main media or other media. That is not just social media; it includes radio, TV, print, posters, et cetera. Secondly, every medical professional body must make it unequivocally clear that disinformation must be refuted. Thirdly, I suggest that all medical outlets should provide a clear statement, in poster format, for hospitals, surgeries, clinics and pharmacies. Fourthly, consideration should be given to how best to communicate with schools, universities and colleges.

In conclusion, we must all remember the terrible harm that was done to the MMR—measles, mumps and rubella—programme, largely by one pioneering rogue doctor. Against that background, I plead with the Minister to ensure that we have a robust new clause and a plan, worked on now so that it can be communicated instantly, if possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I support and will speak to Amendments 18, 36 and 57, which have been so well introduced and explained by him, and which I have signed, and will speak to my own Amendment 20.

We have had discussions on this Bill and the Trade Bill about health data and trade issues. The two Bills are intimately connected, and this amendment is very complementary to Amendment 11, passed on Report of the Trade Bill on 7 December. There was no debate or discussion about the new Clauses 7 and 12 and the new subsection in Clause 37 when they were introduced in Grand Committee. On both counts it is therefore vital that we get to grips with them today. I welcome the Minister’s new amendments, which he has spoken to and which take us a step further in terms of patient consent, definition of information and relevant persons. But I have signed, and these Benches support, the additional amendments to those clauses and subsection put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to ensure that we further tighten these provisions. Specifically, we want to tie this to international co-operation on pharmacovigilance or in monitoring the performance and safety of medical devices, and a public interest test put around the disclosure of health data, for all the reasons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Patel.

As I said when the House debated these issues on Report of the Trade Bill and later passed the amendment, NHS data is a precious commodity, especially given the many transactions between technology, telecoms and pharma companies concerned with NHS data. I cited a recent report in which EY estimated that the value of NHS data could be around £10 billion a year in the benefit delivered, and the fact that the Department of Health and Social Care is preparing to publish its national health and care data strategy shortly, in which it is expected to prioritise the

“safe, effective and ethical use of data-driven technologies, such as artificial intelligence, to deliver fairer health outcomes.”

I mentioned too that, while acknowledging that the UK is a leading player in the fields of life sciences and biosciences, health professionals have strongly argued that free trade deals risk compromising the safe storage and processing of NHS data in much the way that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has mentioned.

Through the amendment to the Trade Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and likewise this amendment, the objective is to ensure that it is the NHS, not US big tech companies and drug giants, that reaps the benefit of all this data. This is especially important given what the Ada Lovelace Institute called in its report, The Data Will See You Now, the “datafication” of health, which, it says, has profound consequences for who can access data about health, how we practically and legally define health data, and our relationship with our own well-being and the healthcare system. Health information can now be inferred from non-health data, and data about health can be used for purposes beyond healthcare. Harnessing the value of healthcare data must therefore be allied with ensuring that adequate protections are put in place in trade agreements, if that value is not to be given or traded away.

At the time, I raised questions about the provisions of the UK-Japan trade agreement, and there is no doubt that these questions will linger unless an amendment of this kind, to both this Bill and the Trade Bill, goes forward.

There have been many shortcomings in the sharing of data between various parts of the health service, care sector and Civil Service. The development of the Covid-19 app and the way that the Government have procured contracts for data management with the private sector have not improved public trust in their approach to data use. That is why clear safeguards are needed to ensure that, in trade deals and international agreements, our publicly held data is safe from exploitation where it is not for public benefit.

On Tuesday, the Minister heavily emphasised the public interest test that he wanted to see applied to the sharing and use of Clause 3 information. The data covered by Clauses 7, 12 and 37 is even more important. He used the same language today and in correspondence, so I hope he can accept these amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has said, we also want to see the aspect of patient consent clarified.

I turn briefly to Amendment 20. I welcome the Minister’s Amendment 19, but Amendment 20 is designed to get the Minister to further clarify what is meant by “consent” in Clause 7. Informed consent is very much a familiar concept in healthcare, especially in treatment and trials, and, indeed, that is effectively the definition on the NHS website. It depends on capacity, explanation, understanding and it being voluntary. That is why my amendment would insert the word “informed”, to make it abundantly clear that, at the very least, that is what is intended here. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I welcome the opportunity to debate this important group of amendments. I welcome the government amendments, but feel that my noble friend Lady Thornton’s amendment is very important, as indeed are some of the others in this group.

I have always been strongly in favour of using patient information. It is a rich source of data for scientists to pursue in the search for medical advances. We all benefit, and I am sure that the great majority of the public see this and are agreeable to information being shared. But we must have appropriate safeguards, and that is why the government amendments to restrict the persons to whom information may be disclosed, and the addition of a definition of patient information and the need for individual patient consent, are all very welcome.

My understanding, however, is that information pertaining to patients can be shared where it has been rendered non-identifiable. As the University of Birmingham has commented, this may be in line with current data protection principles but there is still a danger of a care.data-type problem, in that the provisions might allow the Government to share with “relevant persons”—as they are now called—outside the UK information they hold on patient data through NHS bodies without consent when anonymised. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, referred to some of the issues with care.data. The stricter definition of patient information may address some of the concerns that the definition of patient data—being restricted to identifiable data—left anonymised data open for use or barter as part of international agreements. Part of this broader concern is that aggregate data can reveal patterns that may allow for re-identification, especially for small patient clusters in respect of rare diseases and conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for moving Amendment 50 enabling regulations to be made to establish the medical devices advisory committee to advise the Secretary of State and to place the existing Devices Expert Advisory Committee on a statutory footing. We welcome this proposed new clause to the information system requirements as an important step towards bringing more transparency to the devices system and ensuring that the regulator seeks independent expert advice on the safety of devices.

As will be seen from Amendments 51, 52, and 53, however—I am moving Amendment 51 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornton—we want the requirement on the Secretary of State to establish the MDAC as a “must do” commitment, rather than the “may” in proposed new subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the amendment in relation to: the need for the regulations; providing advice; and making key provisions, such as how independent members should be from the Secretary of State. I know that numerous debates have been held during the course of legislation going through this House about the differences between “must” and “may”. However, “must” is surely the necessary language to require the Secretary of State to establish the committee and ensure its independence.

The Government’s briefings on the amendment—and the Minister today—as well as referring to the committee providing independent expert advice, emphasise that this will include “the views of patients”, complementing the work of the patient safety commissioner and giving patients a voice within the system of regulating medical devices. Through every stage of the Bill, noble Lords have underlined the importance of consultation with patients and end-users of medicines and medical devices. Can the Minister explain the thinking behind not including a subsection in the amendment which underlines the importance of the patient’s voice and perspective? I would also be grateful if he could tell the House what he considers will be the impact on the advisory role and scope of the change to a statutory footing for the committee.

We acknowledge the need for the two technical government Amendments 64 and 96. On Amendment 64, I note the explanation from the Minister today, and in his briefing letter to Peers of 5 January, of the need to reinstate provisions in the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 extending time limits for bringing proceedings in relation to medical devices offences. Amendment 96 is a necessary consequential amendment in relation to the added clause on the MDAC under Clause 18, bringing the whole clause into force two months after the Bill is passed.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am glad to be able to take part in this debate, which allows the House to have a preliminary discussion about the future of medical devices regulation. I certainly welcome the establishment of an advisory committee, but I also welcome my noble friend’s amendment which makes sure that the rather tentative “may” is replaced by “must”. The Minister’s amendment is rather open-ended. It does not specify what matters it will advise the Secretary of State on, nor does it give any indication of the likely balance of membership. This is important because, as I have said, there has been some concern over quite a few years that the regulation of medical devices is not up to the mark, nor sufficiently protective of patient safety. The report by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has identified some weaknesses. In that regard, I declare my interest as president of GS1 UK, the bar-coding association.

We received a very helpful briefing from Professor Muireann Quigley and colleagues at the University of Birmingham, pointing to the rather confused state that medical devices regulation is in. The Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 came into force at the end of the EU exit transition period. These amend the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 to mirror key elements contained in EU regulations 2017/745, on medical devices, and 2017/746 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices. The aim of that was to make sure that there was good regulatory alignment between the UK and EU, as well as between different parts of the UK’s own regulatory framework. This Bill, when enacted, will provide an opportunity to mandate a more streamlined legislative approach. That would benefit all stakeholders, including industry, businesses and patients.

At present, the MHRA has no involvement in the pre-market phase of medical device development and there is a question as to whether it ought to have. Birmingham University colleagues are certainly proposing a proactive regulatory role for devices that is more akin to that for medicines. This would be clinically focused and, as they say, at least as stringent as the new EU medical devices regulations. Under that proposal, manufacturers could be required to apply to the MHRA before marketing their device. The MHRA could also assess the application in a way that is proportionate to the risks. It is proposed to take account of relevant factors, such as evidence-based supply, approvals in other jurisdictions and post-marketing surveillance plans. I know that that view may not necessarily be shared by industry, which would, perhaps, be concerned about the cost and delay in achieving licensing. However, we can expect a pretty intense debate about medical device regulation in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

66: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—
“Availability of medicines and medical devices for human use on the National Health Service
(1) The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence must have regard to the need—(a) to address the implications of health inequalities when assessing the cost effectiveness of medicines and medical devices,(b) to support early patient access to effective new medicines and medical devices, including by accepting a greater degree of uncertainty and risk in recommending their use,(c) to ensure patients with rare diseases have access to medicines and medical devices that they need, and(d) to support the use of curative therapies involving medicines and medical devices.(2) The Secretary of State must lay a report and impact assessment before both Houses of Parliament setting out how the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has implemented its duty under subsection (1), in particular in its manual on process and methods for developing NICE guidelines.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to ensure that its recommendations support the NHS in the ways described in subsection (1).

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, before I start, perhaps I may make the point to the clerks that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, needs to be unmuted every time the Deputy Speaker goes through the amendments so that she can move them or not. It is very frustrating; we can see it happening, and it is impossible for us to come in on this situation. That is why there is such a hiatus.

My Amendment 66 concerns NICE’s current view of its methods and processes as part of the agreement on the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access, happily known as VPAS. If NICE is to maintain its global relevance, it is critical that the methods review delivers tangible changes to ensure that it can fairly and effectively assess the true value of innovative medicines.

The UK life sciences sector is at a crossroads. Without meaningful intervention from the Government, exiting the EU obviously presents significant threats to the attractiveness of the UK. We know that global boardrooms take a holistic approach when considering where to place their investment, including the attractiveness and speed of the commercial environment—we have debated these earlier in the Bill. The ability quickly to launch medicines and technologies into our market and to get medicines quickly to the patients who need them is one of the main factors that shape boardroom sentiment on future investment, alongside the quality of scientific research and the possibility of collaboration. It was the Labour Government who set up NICE to do that: to get innovative new medicines and devices to the NHS and implemented as quickly as possible.

But the UK risks missing out on a wave of breakthrough therapies, with the potential to transform outcomes, if the NICE review does not lead to meaningful change in the way it does its business. Not only do we risk losing our reputation as a leader at the cutting edge of medical science but, more importantly, patients will not be able to assess the most innovative treatments available elsewhere. So NICE’s approach to appraising value must take into account the strategic benefits of the NHS remaining at the forefront of medical innovation and demonstrate that the UK Government are committed to supporting a thriving, world-leading life science sector post Brexit.

In relation to my amendment, I would like to raise issues of barriers to new innovative technologies, such as gene therapy. Gene therapy is a prime example of a medical technology that the UK should embrace, and, indeed, the Government have rightfully lauded the UK’s efforts in this regard. But a procedure called the discount rate, used by NICE to adjust for future costs and health benefits when valuing treatments, discriminates against one-time therapies that offer potential long-term health benefits over many years, such as gene therapies. NICE almost always uses a 3.5% rate. It can apply a lower 1.5% rate for therapies that offer longer-term health benefits, but it has chosen to do this only on exceptionally rare occasions. I wonder whether the Minister will commit to working with NICE to review the circumstances in which the policy solution can be applied to unlock the potential of such innovations.

The VPAS was negotiated with the aim to secure a triple win for patients, government and industry. But NHS England’s current bespoke commercial agreements significantly undervalue innovation, and this is something global boardrooms look at for evidence in the NICE review—that speedy access to new medicines will be improved.

Why should the Government commit to doing an impact assessment of the changes? Well, warm words and promises from Ministers are not enough; we need a clear commitment from them that they will place the emphasis on NICE to ensure meaningful action. In Committee, the Minister argued that my amendment was not necessary, and that the issues I raised were already dealt with in existing legislation and were outside the remit of the Bill. She went on to say:

“NICE, like the rest of the health system, is constantly keeping methods under review to ensure they are appropriate and support the speed of innovation in the life sciences sector,”


and she agreed about the need to get new innovations into the hands of patients quickly. In so doing, she referred to the methods and process manual produced by NICE

“in consultation with a range of stakeholders, including industry and academics.”

She said:

“NICE will publish a revised manual and related impact assessment when that process is completed.”—[Official Report, 26/10/20; col. GC 52.]


Is that sufficient?

The Ethical Medicines Industry Group has identified that medicines and medical devices often face challenges when being assessed by NICE, due the rigid focus on cost-effectiveness. Failing to consider other factors, such as the benefits of treatment in reducing health inequalities or the wider impacts on quality of life, often hinders patients’ ability to access innovative life-saving treatments. The EMIG argues that introducing a health inequalities modifier would be critical to demonstrate that NICE recognises the importance of reducing the high levels of unmet medical needs in the population and to benefit the most disadvantaged and underserved patient groups. There is strong support for the introduction of this modifier among experts involved in the development of the consultation, with a document noting that there is evidence that people are willing to generate less health overall if the health is generated in disadvantaged groups, particularly for socioeconomic disadvantage.

My amendment seeks to build on expert support to ensure equitable access to innovative treatments for conditions that are not adequately treated, to drive down health inequalities and benefit the most marginalised patients. I argue that NICE must also review its appraisal system for rare disease treatments to ensure that the system in place enables patient access. Inherently, rare disease treatments serve small patient populations, and generating sufficient data to meet NICE’s cost-effectiveness requirements is often challenging.

I have received a briefing from another organisation, Global Blood Therapeutics, on sickle cell disease. It argues that, in relation to the UK’s most prevalent genetic disorder, SCD treatments are currently limited to managing the condition rather than addressing the underlying causes. But there is hope that a new range of therapies may change this.

On occasion, NICE has also considered treatments which may not meet its traditional cost-effectiveness thresholds but which would have a significant impact on health inequalities. But consideration of health inequalities remains rare, and I think that this needs to be revisited. If NICE is truly committed to designing an appraisal process which reduces health inequalities and provides equitable access for the most disadvantaged patients, the introduction of a health inequalities modifier, as set out in my amendment, is vital.

The UK life science sector faces a great challenge. It is a huge asset. We have to ensure that organisations such as NICE play their part in making sure that the NHS and the UK are attractive for major investment in the future. In a nutshell, that is the crunch point of my amendment. We have as well to make sure that its methodology deals with health inequalities sufficiently. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I know the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has a long-term interest in and commitment to the work of NICE and, as such, will know that NICE’s remit is set out in other legislation. I do not intend to rehearse the arguments on why we do not see that as strictly for this Bill. Instead, I hope to provide some reassurance on the issues he raises with his amendment.

The noble Lord will be aware that NICE’s methods and processes for assessing the cost-effectiveness of medical technologies are internationally respected and have been developed over almost 20 years through periodic review, including extensive engagement with stakeholders, and the latest iteration of that process of periodic review of its methods is ongoing. NICE finished the first phase of its consultation on the case for change to its methods on 18 December 2020. There will be a second consultation on the case for change to its processes in the spring. The result of those will inform the final consultation on the updated methods manual in summer 2021. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured by the consultative nature of that process in considering the issues he raised.

Subsection (1)(a) of the new clause proposed in his amendment would require NICE to address the implications of health inequalities when assessing the cost effectiveness of medicines and medical devices. Subsection (1)(b) would require NICE to accept a greater degree of uncertainty and risk in recommending their use. I reassure the noble Lord that NICE is already considering both of those as part of its review, and they were both consulted on as part of the consultation on the case for change that ran from 6 November to 18 December 2020.

In that consultation, NICE noted that there may be a case for a modifier that considers health inequalities. However, further work is needed to explore how this could be defined and implemented in a health technology evaluation, and under which circumstances. This will be done in NICE’s second consultation running from February to March. Such a modifier could consider the types and sources of inequality, as well as how a modifier should be applied—qualitative or quantitative. It could also consider whether such a modifier covers technologies that directly reduce inequalities—for example, by specifically targeting or providing additional benefits for a disadvantaged group; or whether indirect effects might also be considered—for example, if a technology has uniform benefits across groups, but the condition disproportionally affects a disadvantaged group. At this stage, it is not clear that there is sufficient evidence for a health inequalities modifier, but it is being explored, and will be explored further in the second stage.

I hope that level of detail on the consideration that NICE is undertaking helps to reassure the noble Lord, but of course it would not be appropriate to pre-empt that review, and we want to encourage all stakeholders to respond to it.

In addition, I remind the noble Lord that a requirement to have regard to reducing health inequalities is already imposed on NICE under Section 1C of the National Health Service Act 2006. This applies to NICE as a non-departmental public body of the Department of Health and Social Care.

Proposed new subsection 1(c) would require NICE to have regard to the need

“to ensure patients with rare diseases have access to medicines and medical devices”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, noted some concern during Grand Committee as to why NICE did not propose a rarity modifier in its methods review. A rarity modifier was considered by NICE prior to publication of the consultation document. However, stakeholders noted that rare diseases would be covered by the proposed severity modifier, which more accurately reflects society’s values. Although there is of course overlap between severity and rarity, not all rare conditions are severe and some severe conditions are more common. Of course, the consultation was an opportunity for all stakeholders to express their views on this point. As noted previously, NICE is also consulting on changes, such as a more accepting attitude towards uncertainty in some situations, which should benefit medicines for rare diseases.

Where there is uncertain evidence relating to a medical technology—I appreciate this can be a challenge for rare diseases—NICE and NHSE&I have developed managed access agreements. NICE has already recommended six topics for use subject to a managed access agreement outside of cancer. NHSE&I continues to use its sophisticated commercial capabilities to negotiate deals with industry that enable patients to access the most innovative new medicines and ensure that the NHS gets good value.

Proposed new subsection 1(d) would require NICE to have regard to supporting

“the use of curative therapies involving medicines and medical devices.”

The word “curative” should be used with caution, as there is no standard definition of what might be meant by it. For example, in some cases it may mean a significant amelioration in symptoms, in others that the treatment pathway is different or more tolerable.

While I appreciate that recently launched advanced therapy medicinal products hold great promise by targeting the specific cell or genetic defect, the data on long-term effectiveness is often immature at the time of marketing approval. Further, we need flexibility to respond quickly and effectively to developments in life sciences. We want to avert a situation whereby an effective therapy is not guaranteed funding because it did not meet the legal definition of a “curative therapy”. However, I think that the noble Lord was more trying to get at our support for some of these innovative approaches. Again, this is being looked at in the review of NICE’s methods.

NICE’s working group has explored whether there is a case for changing the approach to discounting, which the noble Lord asked about, in particular the impact on technologies with long-term benefits such as one-time gene therapies. This is a complex area that needs to take into account the policy-level need to support particular types of technologies or circumstances, the limitations of the current criteria for non-reference case discounting, and the effects and any accompanying policy and affordability challenges of any change. This will be covered by the second stage of the NICE methods review. Again, while we would not want to pre-empt that review, all stakeholders are encouraged to respond to it.

Briefly, proposed new subsection (2) would require the Secretary of State to lay a report and impact assessment before both Houses of Parliament, setting out how NICE has implemented its duty under proposed new subsection (1). As I said in Grand Committee, NICE will publish its revised methods and process manual, including its impact assessment, on its website for all to access, including parliamentarians, once the process has been completed. That is the correct forum.

I will briefly address Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which touches on similar issues—the importance of access to medical technologies, the future medical devices regulatory regime, and the critical nature of medical device safety. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s work through her engagement with Ministers and our officials in developing government Amendment 45, which provides greater clarity on the types of activity we would intend to encourage through appropriate regulation. That includes, in respect of medical devices, carrying out research, developing medical devices, or manufacturing and supplying medical devices.

The Government support the agenda for early access to medical devices for NHS patients, as demonstrated through other mechanisms such as the rapid uptake products programme, managed by Accelerated Access Collaborative, and the medtech funding mandate, due to launch in April.

The second stated purpose of the noble Baroness’s amendment—to allow monitoring of the safety and efficacy of medical devices in real-time use—is already achieved by regulations that may be made under Clause 15(1)(i) and (j), so the mechanism to deliver this is already in place. In addition, Clause 18 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations for the establishment of a medical device information system by NHS Digital, which will support the monitoring of patient outcomes and patient safety.

The noble Baroness also asked about the timeframe for future devices regulation made under the Bill. I assure her we will consult on this issue this year.

I hope the reassurances I have provided, here and during Committee, are of comfort to noble Lords and that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I wanted to stimulate a debate on the NICE review and it certainly succeeded, because we had a very high-quality debate. I am very grateful to the Minister for what was a comprehensive and encouraging response, in a number of ways.

I will start with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, because she made a powerful speech and argued very convincingly for the speeding up of approval processes, alongside speeding up the introduction to the National Health Service of proven, innovative new medicines and treatments. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about patient safety, but my amendment and, I believe, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, would do nothing to undermine patient safety. In the first place, the Minister has already tabled an amendment to Clause 1, which we debated on the first day of Report, which gives priority to considerations of patient safety. It is clear from the explanation given for Amendment 46 from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that her proposals for a preliminary licence would allow for monitoring of safety and efficacy in real time. That could be a real bonus indeed.

I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked the fundamental question: why are we so slow to introduce new medicines and devices? Why are we behind so many other developed countries?

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, gave a very thoughtful contribution. He is absolutely right to argue that we need more support for innovative medicine. The tragedy is this. We have the excellent VPAS agreement whereby, essentially, industry accepts that if the cost of medicines goes above a certain agreed level it will pay a rebate back to the Government, or ideally the National Health Service. If this worked properly the resource going back would be used for innovation, but for reasons that I have never quite understood the money does not seem to go back directly in an identifiable form to the NHS. We have the bizarre situation where, locally, the NHS worries about its drug costs. When it goes above a certain level there is a rebate, but unfortunately that rebate does not seem to find its way back in a tangible, transparent form, to the NHS. We have not created out of the agreement the kind of win-win situation that surely was envisaged when the previous voluntary agreement was first developed.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned one of the big issues: the need for NICE and NHS England to work together. I do not get the impression that they do work together that well, because NHS England regards most innovation as costly and therefore tries to dampen it down. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley: we need a much better partnership where we build in value for innovation and dealing with inequalities—one where NHS England would actually be on board.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and my noble friend Lady Thornton talked about this being a big-picture debate. Of course, this is not something that can be solved by an amendment to a medicines Bill, but Parliament ought to debate these important issues and, at the very least, raise some issues that the review should undertake to address.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

67: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—
“Medicines and Medical Devices Redress Agency
The Secretary of State must, by the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, bring proposals before Parliament to establish a Redress Agency for those harmed by medicines and medical devices.”

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I want to come back to the debate on clinical negligence and the recommendation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in her report for a redress agency. I declare my interest as a member of the GMC board.

We have reached a very serious position, with an exponential rise in clinical negligence costs. Twenty years ago, contingent liability was £3.9 billion; it is now £83 billion. Even allowing for inflation, I hardly think that we have become 20 times more negligent over that period. Indeed, the Minister, Nadine Dorries, told the House of Commons in a Written Answer last November:

“The continued rises in clinical negligence costs are eating into resources available for front-line care”.


It is not delivering for patients and their families, either. There are huge delays in getting cases settled and huge lawyers’ fees, in a quite remarkable situation where the NHS ends up paying damages in 80% of litigated clinical negligence claims. There is something wrong in the way we deal with these cases.

There have been endless reviews over the past 20 years, but precious little has happened. Seventeen years ago, an NHS redress scheme was unveiled by the then Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson. Legislation followed in 2006 but, 14 years later, it has yet to be implemented—and I doubt it ever will be. Since then, there has been much debate about the sustainability of Section 2(4) of the 1948 Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act, which essentially promotes increased costs because it provides that

“there shall be disregarded, in determining the reasonableness of any expenses, the possibility of avoiding those expenses or part of them by taking advantage of facilities available under”

the NHS. In other words, the NHS tends to pay twice.

In 2017, the department and the Ministry of Justice commissioned the independent Civil Justice Council to draw up a new claims handling process for clinical negligence claims of up to £25,000, together with proposals for fixed recoverable costs for these cases. The report was published, with recommendations, in October 2019. Since then, there has been silence.

In that context, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, argued in her report First Do No Harm for a redress agency to be set up on an avoidable harm basis, which looks to systematic failings rather than blaming individuals. This, she thought, would encourage reporting and provide faster resolution for claimants. She argued that this

“would provide a standing structure to administer decisions using a non-adversarial process. This model is simple for patients to access as there is one point of contact. This structure enables flexibility to adapt and respond to situations as they arise.”

The proposed scheme of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is well intentioned and has popular appeal. I recognise that details need to be spelled out in relation to eligibility, qualifying criteria or conditions of entitlement for her proposed redress scheme. Of course, causality is at the heart of any consideration of patient safety remedy. Causation is at the heart of tort. The Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 is limited to persons disabled as a result of vaccination. Even the NHS Redress Act 2006, to which have just referred, is concerned with arrangements for redress in relation to liability in tort. The noble Baroness’s approach is of course quite different from that.

The noble Baroness the Minister in Committee was not enthusiastic. In the past 48 hours we have heard the Government’s response that they have,

“no current plans to establish a redress agency”,

as set out in the recommendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. The reply went on to say:

“The government and industry have previously established redress schemes without the need for an additional agency.”


Well, that is a rather disappointing dismissal and misses the point, because the noble Baroness was essentially calling for a wholesale reform of the current clinical negligence system. I urge the Minister to reconsider this matter.

Can we really go on with the exponential rise in costs to the NHS—a system in which it loses 80% of cases that reach the courts, and where huge delays take place in patients getting access to an outcome? The system is completely bust. We need a new one and I hope that the Minister will, with his colleagues, consider what action needs to be taken to improve the current situation. I beg to move.

[Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. His determination is awe-inspiring. I am so pleased that he has not left this issue mouldering on the Committee Floor but has picked it up again.

I understand what the noble Lord said about the Government not being enthusiastic. However, I have known other issues on which the Government have been less than enthusiastic. It is the way in which we put forward persuasive arguments—although setting up this agency will take a lot of work, with a lot of detail to be considered. However, other schemes have been successful. I think about the one in my area—thalidomide. That trust is still running and getting redress for people who need it. So I strongly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.

In our review, we tried to achieve a very simple and accessible structure for patients through the proposed redress agency. In an update on our recommendations, the Minister in the House of Commons, Nadine Dorries, said that the Department of Health and Social Care had delivered ex-gratia payments with individual schemes without the need for a redress agency. Indeed it has.

There are four or five schemes for infected blood alone, with eligibility based on whether the patient was a haemophiliac with HIV; a haemophiliac with hepatitis C; a non-haemophiliac with HIV; or a non-haemophiliac with hepatitis C. These different schemes addressed what type of payment should be awarded according to the patient’s need. What we—I am talking about my team and I—were advocating is a single point of contact for avoidably harmed patients. We felt very strongly that they had suffered enough without the necessity of finding out how to access the schemes that are relevant to them. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said that something is wrong. He is right: it is wrong. This is not the way to help people who have been seriously harmed.

The problem is that, without a redress agency, each ex gratia scheme starts from scratch, which we felt was grossly inefficient. We need a standing administrative structure, funded by contributions from manufacturers and the state—both have a responsibility. At the moment, litigation is the only route, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, for injured people to get serious compensation. We know that the process is very damaging to people. They do not like going to court, they do not like having to put forward all the information that is absolutely necessary—and sometimes not so necessary—and they do not like the fact that it is an adversarial system. We felt that the redress agency could remove the need for adversarial litigation that focuses on blaming individual doctors and nurses. The agency would be non-adversarial and would look at the systems failings that led to avoidable harm. This would help develop an open culture in healthcare and facilitate learning—we are not good at that. We know that the same mistakes happen over and again, and we felt that this was another tool to ensure that there would be much less of that.

Gathering information in one place—the agency—would make it so much easier to learn from the data that is collected and would strengthen the ability of the healthcare system to learn from the mistakes made. We have only to look at the cost of litigation of some £83 billion a year—I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. We know that, often, the majority of those costs go to the law firms, not the individuals who have suffered so grievously. We felt that it would be much better if those huge sums of money, which are much needed by the NHS, should be used with a redress agency, which would have other advantages, as I have just outlined. A stand-alone agency, with a single entry point, would be a much better and more cost-effective way to award redress to those who suffer such avoidable harm—and many of them suffer for decades.

--- Later in debate ---

However, for the reasons set out, and as announced yesterday in the Written Ministerial Statement on the review, we currently have no plans to establish a redress agency. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is aware, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, might like to remember, the Government will respond to the issues raised in the amendment, in full, as part of our formal response to the independent medicines and medical devices safety review. I therefore hope the noble Lord has heard enough, so that he is reassured and able to withdraw Amendment 67.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, again, this has been an interesting debate. As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, there are persuasive arguments to change the current approach to redress and clinical negligence more widely. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that the Government’s response was short and not really sweet.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right to draw a distinction between schemes of redress and wider clinical negligence issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has a later amendment dealing with specific recommendations on redress for the patient groups that she examined in her report. I took her argument for a redress agency to have much wider implications and considerations. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, expressed surprise at the wording of my Amendment 67. I simply sought to bring this back, so that we could have a wider discussion, as well as deal with the issues raised around the three patient groups in the noble Baroness’s report.

I have never understood why the redress Act was put on the statute book but never implemented. It is clear from talking to experts that it is regarded as flawed, but it is interesting that no Government have picked this up. Equally, we all accept that redress schemes for individual patient groups are an appropriate way forward. However, we are left with a system for clinical negligence that I simply do not believe works.

I heard what the Minister said about improvements for NHS Resolution, but the fundamental argument is that the system is getting more and more expensive—the £80 billion-plus question, as the Minister said. For patients and their relatives, it can be a daunting process, even though, as he said, more can be dealt with prior to going to court. But when the cases do go to court, NHS Resolution tends to lose them. We go back to the size of awards, where the issue, in essence, is that the NHS has to pay twice because of the way that the 1948 legislation was drafted.

At the end of the day, surely we need a thorough review of the whole issue of redress and clinical negligence. I can see that the Government do not yet accept the recommendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. In the end, we have to start with a clean sheet of paper to see if we can do better by patients, the NHS and all the individuals affected. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 67 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]]

Amendment 68, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, requires the Secretary of State

“to create redress schemes for those who have already suffered avoidable harm”

related to hormone pregnancy tests, sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. The Minister has told us that there will be no redress agency. The noble Lord spoke passionately about suffering without redress. A significant amount will need to be paid through NHS Resolution to the women affected by these three interventions. Who will ensure that the women affected receive proper recompense? As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has said, they have had to pay out for travel for treatment and payment for carers, and they are seriously out of pocket for what they originally thought was standard, straightforward NHS treatment.

I fear that, if there is no scheme, the NHS will have to pay more than it would through a properly managed redress scheme. This and the previous amendment are powerful signals to the Government that they must act on this issue of redress. I hope that, in summing up, the Minister will be able to share the Government’s plans with us. If they have no plans, what would he suggest that these women should do? The noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, put the case very powerfully.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, that this afternoon we have given a powerful signal to the Government. Certainly, from these Benches, we very much support her amendment and her efforts to get redress for people who were grievously damaged by procedures undertaken in the National Health Service.

The noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, talked about one woman’s experience of the impact of surgical mesh, and the huge pain and damage inflicted. I was very grateful to him when I had a Question on surgical mesh, which he answered, as watching it from the Gallery were a group of women from Sling the Mesh, who I had brought in. He gave a lot of time to them afterwards; perhaps it paved the way to the inquiry established under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. Like him, meeting those women and talking to them about what they had suffered made me absolutely determined to do anything I could to raise the issue.

We were very fortunate that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, accepted the chairmanship of this inquiry, given the quality of her team and the extraordinary lengths to which she went to produce its very fine report. Anyone who has met the people involved and listened to the suffering that they have undertaken is left with a feeling that it is awful. Something must be done for them and I very much hope that the Minister will be sympathetic.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, what a moving and heartrending set of speeches on a very important amendment, which I take extremely seriously. It raises the issue of establishing a specific redress scheme for those medicines and medical devices considered by the review: sodium valproate, the use of pelvic mesh and hormone pregnancy tests. The stories in the review, which have been told here this afternoon, are extremely moving on every single level. I cannot but pay testimony to those who have conducted the campaign and given evidence about their own personal suffering—and who, quite reasonably, look for some form of redress.

I completely understand why my noble friend Lady Cumberlege has raised this issue and why she and other noble Lords have asked for progress on her review. I also completely understand the importance that she and her team attach to this recommendation. They rightly spent considerable time drawing on a wide range of complex evidence before reaching their recommendations. The Government feel it is only right that we also give that incredibly helpful report our full consideration before responding to its recommendations. I remind noble Lords about the timeline for a response to these kinds of reviews, which we have gone over before. I think we are well within the normal response time for such reviews, Covid notwithstanding.

In order to determine whether redress schemes should be established, the Government have a duty to ensure that the final decision is fair for patients and for citizens more generally—not just the patients and citizens affected by the three treatments that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege alluded to, but all citizens and patients; you cannot favour someone over another. This requires extremely careful consideration of any proposed scheme but also the precedent that any decision sets for future policy-making. We spoke in the previous debate about the £83 billion problem. That kind of financial impact has a profound bearing on this kind of discussion.

My noble friend Lady Cumberlege asked when the Government will respond to her review. The Written Ministerial Statement of 11 January sets out the Government’s interim response. I emphasise to anyone who may be confused that it is just an interim response to the report of the IMMDS review. We currently plan to respond to the report later this year; that is a commitment made by my honourable friend Nadine Dorries, the Minister in the other place. The report took over two years to compile and we therefore consider it absolutely vital for the sake of patients, especially those who have suffered greatly, to give this recommendation the full consideration it deserves.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked why the Government have established redress schemes in the past but are unwilling to commit to the schemes proposed in this amendment. I think that one is too early to call. It is right and proper for the Government to carefully consider proposals for redress schemes on their own merits to ensure a fair outcome for patients, and citizens more generally.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked why it is taking so long to consider the recommendations. The report took over two years to compile, so we need to consider it very carefully. I do not want to use the Covid pandemic as a catch-all excuse, but the reality is that our hospitals are overwhelmed; the Department of Health has doubled in size in the last six months and even with that it is overworked and overstretched. The resources and capacity to respond to this kind of report are, I am afraid, distracted on other matters of national health crisis. However, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and other noble Lords who have spoken that work is under way and we will set out the Government’s response to this report later this year.

I could not help but be enormously moved by the testimony of the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy. In essence, he asked why the Government do not recognise that the patients highlighted in the report of the medicines and medical devices review suffered unavoidable harm, particularly those who took hormone pregnancy tests. The Government absolutely do regard their suffering most seriously indeed and are considering the contents of the report. I am restricted in what I can see regarding hormone pregnancy tests in particular, given the live litigation, but I want to make clear the Government’s position regarding a causal association between HPTs and adverse outcomes in pregnancy. The scientific evidence has been reviewed on a number of occasions, most notably by the Commission on Human Medicines expert working group on HPTs, which, as noble Lords will know, reporting its findings in November 2017. The EWG concluded that the scientific evidence did not support a causal association and that remains the Government’s position.

Just as Covid-19 impacted the publication of the report, it has also had an impact on the timing of our response. I know, and recognise, that that is enormously frustrating. The Government are committed to responding and I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that work is under way. Our upcoming full response will address recommendation number four. We are moved by the stories; I am totally and utterly sympathetic to the situation that the patients affected by these conditions find themselves in on a day-to-day basis. They are still living through it today. I would like to regard myself as a compassionate person, but it is not appropriate to make policy on this kind of matter through primary legislation. For that reason, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment and await the Government’s full response to her report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patel.

What does one say to the people of Northern Ireland? They voted to remain in the EU, their vote was ignored by the DUP, and they have been duped by the Government, who continue to deny that there is a border in the North Sea—when today we are debating ample evidence of such a border. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, identified, the distinction the MHRA is now having to make between the EU market, the British market and the market for Northern Ireland, as well as the bureaucracy involved and the cost for British-based companies, is undeniable.

These two very modest amendments seek to ensure that Parliament gets a regular report on how this is working in relation to medicines and medical devices regulations, and that various bodies should be consulted. However, over and above that, the Minister owes the House some explanation of how we have ended up in this bizarre situation, where Northern Ireland, which wanted to be in the EU and wanted to be listened to, has ended up in this rather parallel existence, with a border down the North Sea, food shortages in its supermarkets, and in a right mess. I hope the Minister can answer that.

[Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to reporting requirements and consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has just put the political case very clearly; the noble Lord, Lord Patel, looked at the technical and regulatory issues; I will look at the practical issues around health services on the island of Ireland.

Amendment 69 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, would require the Secretary of State to report on regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Can the Minister tell us when the first report would be published, whether the Republic would be part of this consultation, and if not, why not? The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and I tabled this amendment to require the relevant authority to consult with patients and healthcare and industry stakeholders when preparing a report under Clause 44.

Divergence is inevitable. The situation for healthcare on the island of Ireland could become extremely complicated. In the past, patients have travelled north or south to receive treatment wherever the appropriate treatment is available. Will citizens from Northern Ireland and the Republic have to use the new GHIC, or do the Government have an agreement with the Republic so that business as usual will be the new norm—no change?

Government Amendments 75 to 77 and 79 to 85 extend the reporting requirements under Clause 44 so that they apply to regulations made by a Northern Ireland department and in respect of regulations under Clause 18. However, we cannot ignore the Republic when we talk about health in Ireland.