Tuesday 12th January 2021
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberMedicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 View all Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 154-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Report - (12 Jan 2021)
16:18 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 324 / Noes: 241 - Amendment 2 agreed.
17:08 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 320 / Noes: 236 - Amendment 3 agreed.
18:32 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 7 - Ayes: 42 / Noes: 278 - Amendment 7 disagreed.
Lord Bethell
“PART A1THE COMMISSIONER FOR PATIENT SAFETYEstablishment and core duties etc
(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a Commissioner for Patient Safety (referred to in this Part as “the Commissioner”) to exercise the functions set out in this Part in relation to England.(2) The Commissioner’s core duties are to—(a) promote the safety of patients with regard to the use of medicines and medical devices, and(b) promote the importance of the views of patients and other members of the public in relation to the safety of medicines and medical devices.(3) The Commissioner is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.(4) Schedule (Further provision about the Commissioner for Patient Safety) makes further provision about the Commissioner.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new Clause which provides for the creation and core duties of a Commissioner for Patient Safety in relation to medicines and medical devices in England. The new Clause and the Schedule which it introduces would form a new Part, to appear before Part 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell)
My Lords, patient safety is very much at the heart of the Bill, and while we have an enormous amount to get through this afternoon, I beg the Chamber’s forbearance if I talk in some detail about this extremely important amendment. Patient safety is the golden thread that runs through this entire Bill. Safety has been our guiding force in amendments that have made it to the Bill, from the changes to decision-making on regulatory change and the new safety lock amendment—which we will debate later—to the enforcement powers for medical devices to make clearer what the MHRA can do to take action, through to the medical devices information system.
The Government have heard the calls, including the strong cross-party support, to establish an independent patient safety commissioner for the health service in England. Of course, this was the centrepiece recommendation of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review helmed by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, to whom I pay profound tribute for her tireless championing on behalf of patients. I am delighted that Amendment 1 in my name—with which it is convenient to debate Amendments 54, 65, 70 to 72, 74, 86, 87, 91, 95 and 97—delivered upon that recommendation. These amendments provide for an independent advocate to champion the safety of patients. The patient safety commissioner will promote their interests and those of other members of the public in relation to the safety of medicines and medical devices.
We acknowledge that the patient’s voice can advance safe care and system improvements but that it needs to be strengthened, as explained in my noble friend’s review published six months ago. Listening to patients is central to preventing the kinds of issues which that review brought so clearly into focus. If we do not strive to listen to patients, their families and to staff, we limit our ability to learn from mistakes, be innovative and continually improve. I pay testament to the extensive listening and the passionate advocating by my noble friend, her supporters and all patient groups.
Patient safety is a system-wide concern. It cannot be tackled by a single individual but needs to be rooted in all the branches of our health system. Good progress has been made: for example, we are improving system-wide learning through measures such as the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch and the implementation of the 2019 NHS Patient Safety Strategy with our National Director of Patient Safety, Dr Aidan Fowler, in charge. That strategy has been listening to patients.
Staff are also encouraged and protected to speak up if they have concerns about anything they believe is harming the services their organisations deliver or commission. They are supported by the NHS People Plan, which envisages a health service that is compassionate and inclusive, not hierarchical, and where staff are listened to. The Government’s emphasis on patient safety will also be reinforced by the establishment of a new patient safety programme board. The board will take an overview—with pace and rigour—of measures and actions across the health system to improve patient safety.
The Government fully support sharpening our focus on the safety of NHS-funded services to patients and the public. We accept that the patient safety system needs to get better at identifying issues and listening to patients’ experiences of avoidable harm. Better co-ordination across and between regulators and other oversight bodies is also needed.
A patient safety commissioner will help us to champion the views of people who have been harmed by treatments provided by the health service. He or she would reinforce a culture of humility, openness and learning. The role is essentially about prioritising the insights of patients as a vital source of learning.
The Government’s amendment puts this new part of the Bill first. Amendment 1 provides for the appointment by the Secretary of State of a patient safety commissioner who is an independent statutory officeholder funded by the Department of Health and Social Care. It sets out the commissioner’s core duties, which are to promote both the safety of patients and the importance of ensuring that they are heard.
Patient engagement will be integral to the role of the commissioner. Proposed new Schedule A1 outlines the ways in which the commissioner must inform, consult and involve patients. This will ensure that patients’ concerns are being heard and that the work of the commissioner has focus and relevance for the people he or she is being set up to serve.
We have reflected carefully on the patient safety commissioner model set out by my noble friend’s comprehensive report. We agree on the importance of the commissioner’s role; it is a critical new part of the map of patient safety. But there are other areas of significant importance to the Government. The commissioner is one part of the whole system—the fundamental change that it required to tackle unsafe care and empower patients. A step change is required in how the health service transforms itself in a joined-up way to put patient safety at its core. Significantly, the introduction of the commissioner should not create overlap or confusion within that health service architecture, thereby reducing the potential to deliver patient safety improvements for patients. Indeed, my noble friend’s report rightly made it clear that the duplication of the roles of other regulatory bodies should be avoided.
In view of this, the patient safety commissioner will not act as an ombudsman. He or she will not carry out functions in pursuit of specific cases. But they can consider individual cases in their role as an overarching advocate for all patients and of making thematic and systemic recommendations. These areas are where we believe the commissioner can have greatest impact.
We have also given the patient safety commissioner deliberately intrusive powers, as called for by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. He or she will be empowered to request and share information from relevant public authorities or a “relevant person”, meaning anyone providing health care, in relation to medicines and medical devices in England. The commissioner’s ambit will cover both the public and the independent sector.
Where my noble friend and I differ is on the process of the appointment and sponsorship of the commissioner. The patient safety commissioner will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and funded by the Department of Health and Social Care. It is absolutely right that this should be the case. For example, the Secretary of State is able to initiate action on reports and understands, and has strategic oversight of, the system the commissioner is looking at.
Some noble Lords have expressed concerns about how such a commissioner might maintain their independence, but I believe that such concerns are unfounded. I am encouraged by the precedent of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, which drew praise from several noble Lords in Grand Committee for its independence. As noble Lords know, the Children’s Commissioner is sponsored by the Department for Education and guards its independence very well. The Victims’ Commissioner does exactly the same and is sponsored by the Ministry of Justice.
It is critical—that is agreed—that the patient safety commissioner is able to speak out without fear or favour. He or she must have the powers and functions to act independently to maximise their impact and confidence. That is absolutely the case here. It is also critical that the right calibre individual with a strong voice for patients is appointed to the role. I do not think any such person would accept such a role if they felt they would in any way be constrained in that role. Nor do I think they would remain silent. Furthermore, we would expect the Secretary of State to work with the commissioner to establish how they will safe- guard and secure the commissioner’s independence. Independence is not static but an active objective, which we would expect the patient safety commissioner to be prepared to approach continuously.
The commissioner will have the power to make reports to both the public sector and independent sector, and to the Department of Health and Social Care if they so wish. Those reports are entirely independent. There is no intention—and indeed no restriction—that would allow for the Secretary of State to edit those reports. As an independent public appointee, the commissioner will also be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament, including through the Health and Social Care Select Committee.
The powers in the Bill are accompanied by a regulation-making power about the terms of office of the patient safety commissioner, the appointment of staff, and other operational matters. But while this power is exercised by the Secretary of State, we are not proposing that the Secretary of State would have any power over the commissioner regarding the fulfilment of his or her functions. However, it is right that the detail is left to regulations so that we can publicly consult on this, as we are obliged to do so under Clause 45. It is important that we get the details right. That is also why the regulations will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure.
Other amendments make minor changes to ensure that the patient safety commissioner clauses work well with the rest of the Bill.
From the First Do No Harm report by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, to earlier, well-known inquiries and investigations, we have heard numerous harrowing stories with terrible examples of how patients have been let down badly by our most loved institutions. As noble Lords have said, now is the time to act. The Government have listened to the impassioned and compelling arguments from all sides, and I thank my esteemed colleagues for their help in shaping this amendment.
We have no doubt that restoring patient trust will be at the heart of the patient safety commissioner’s role and that he or she will advance patient safety. Our commitment to amplifying and acting on the voices of patients in our health service is paramount. To that end, I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his huge support throughout this whole process—all the times we have had to meet and I have met with his officials. I also thank him for the way in which he has so comprehensively introduced his amendment today. To be honest—“O ye of little faith!”—there were times when I thought the patient safety commissioner would not see the light of day. However, I underestimated my noble friend and thank him for agreeing to the concept and for bringing it to fruition with his officials.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I can only join in with the congratulations that everybody has expressed in this debate today. I congratulate of course the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and support her—as we have from these Benches throughout. I also congratulate and thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and also somebody who I do not think has been mentioned but I do remember sitting giving his wisdom in the many discussions we have had, who is of course the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I think the team were very wise indeed to have him sitting with them.
I am not going to say very much because I think we are there with this. Most of the questions that needed to be asked have been asked: on speed, independence, resourcing and powers, and on the issue of “relevant person”, which several noble Lords mentioned. These are the key issues.
One issue that has not been mentioned—here I thank the PSA for its brief—is the need to ensure that there is no reduction in public protection in any other areas of government policy, and that the remit of the role should link closely with the work of the other bodies involved in patient safety.
Finally, I have to say that I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that there has to be a four-country element in this. As the role is intended to cover only England, there should be consideration of how the link with equivalent or complementary mechanisms will work in the other countries of the UK. Otherwise, we might find ourselves with a dissonance here, which will not be in patients’ interests.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I will save my Hollywood thank-yous for the end of the process, but profound thanks will need to be said. I want to say specific thanks to those who have spoken in the debate on these amendments. There have been a large number of very thoughtful comments. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay both mentioned four nations and devolution. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, spoke on gender, my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy on industry advocacy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, on Northern Ireland. It is a very long list, and I cannot address every contribution. What I will do instead is address what I think have been the key points in the debate on these very important amendments.
Amendment 65 was tabled by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege before the Government’s own. I am extremely grateful to her and her team, who have written to me expressing their thoughts. The government amendment would not have been possible without her continued engagement and that of other noble Lords whose experience and knowledge have been essential in shaping the Government’s thinking. Although there are differences between our amendments, we are agreed on the fundamental point that we must create a patient safety commissioner in order to give the voice of patients its rightful prominence. My noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy has made that point extremely clearly and effectively.
More broadly, I hope that the amendment in my name assures my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and the House of the seriousness with which the Government takes the report First Do No Harm. The Government will continue to review this report. We made a Written Ministerial Statement on the report and its recommendations yesterday, and will respond to the whole report shortly.
A patient safety commissioner, as proposed in Amendment 65, would promote the interests of patients and other members of the public in relation to the safety of medicines and medical devices. The Government entirely agree that listening to patients is essential to preventing the sorts of issues highlighted in the report. On this, our visions for the patient safety commissioner are as one.
However, Amendment 65 in the name of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege differs in specific ways. Her proposed new subsection (2) provides that the Cabinet Office would host and fund the patient safety commissioner. My noble friend has argued here and in Committee—and, indeed, in her report—that this would be necessary to safeguard the independence of the commissioner. I simply do not agree. It is common practice for commissioners to be sponsored by the government department with relevant policy responsibility, and it is entirely unclear to me what the benefit of sponsorship elsewhere would be. The process of public appointments is set out clearly; there is no question of undue influence by the sponsoring Secretary of State. The process is there—in fact, it is public. Nor does the identity of the sponsoring department amend or change the powers and functions of the commissioner; it is simply how the body is supported.
There are also differences in the way in which my noble friend’s intention is executed. In her report, she was clear that working with other bodies was necessary and, as I would hope, obvious as part of any commissioner’s remit. However, Amendment 65 is unclear as to how the commissioner would interact with other regulatory bodies. For example, proposed new subsection (5)(e) would allow the commissioner to receive direct reports from patients and any other persons, including regulators and the public. However, the CQC, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the MHRA, among others, are all open to receiving direct reports from patients and the public. They have a responsibility to listen to complainants. These bodies also have their own routes for reporting. For example, as we know from the vaccines rollout, adverse incidents relating to medicines and medical devices are reported through the MHRA’s yellow card scheme.
Without differentiation between taking receipt of direct reports to further a broader investigation and acting as an ombudsman, Amendment 65 might create a body overwhelmed by patient reporting and investigating individual cases. The noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Hunt, both referred to past agencies here, but where the best route to resolution sits elsewhere. The report itself said that the commissioner should not investigate individual cases, yet this boundary is absent from the amendment.
Proposed new subsection (7) enables the commissioner to require information from public bodies and others for the purposes of producing and laying before Parliament reports regarding patient safety, but “other” would extend to private individuals—a very expansive group indeed. The amendment tabled by my noble friend provides for the commissioner to make reports only to the Secretary of State and Parliament, and not to a range of bodies as in the government amendment. Nor does my noble friend’s amendment provide for what would happen if these individuals did not respond.
“Relevant person” is a broad definition. I am confident that it will enable the commissioner to engage with the organisations necessary to fulfil their functions effectively. In addition, proposed new paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule A1 would enable the commissioner to receive information from and consult
“any other person the Commissioner thinks appropriate”.
This provides the commissioner with all the relevant tools necessary. A vital difference between my amendment and the proposals of my noble friend is that, in mine, provisions are made for the patient safety commissioner to make reports and recommendations to relevant public authorities or persons, and for that authority or person to have a duty to respond to these; I think that is vital.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]
My Lords, I want to say one or two things very quickly. I thank those who have spoken; it has meant such a lot to me. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Hunt, have been there since the very beginning of this journey.
I say to the Minister, as I should have said at the very beginning, that I will withdraw my amendment. I have no wish to take it further. I do think that the Cabinet Office would have provided us with more independence, but my noble friend the Minister said at the very beginning that this was a red line and it was no good my pursuing it. I took that hint and I have not argued it anywhere. Hearing the Minister talk about independence today—getting it on the record—has been really important. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, of course influence matters as well, and I take that.
I will say a very quick word about the timetable, which is critical. In our recommendations we wanted to set up a task force to implement this under the aegis of the Department of Health and Social Care. That has been rejected by Ministers. That is a tremendous pity. Noble Peers are concerned about the timetable; so am I.
It has been said that this has been very quick. No, it has not. Those of us who have run companies know what “quick” means: if your company is to survive you have to act very quickly. This is not quick. I will put pressure on through other means, particularly the all-party group, to get this implemented as soon as possible, because people are suffering. People are in dire straits and we have to stop this awful damage that is being done to lives. The quicker we can do this, the better. I am sure my noble friend will agree with that.
I know when I am beaten, but I also know what needs to be done. I do not want to go through the point of view of the Cabinet Office, but it is absolutely critical that this appointment is made speedily, because people are suffering and we should avoid that if at all possible. I believe that the patient safety commissioner will grasp this issue and ensure safety, which, as my noble friend the Minister said, has run through the Bill. I thank him for that, but it will not happen until this appointment is made. I am afraid that I will press very strongly on that.
I thank all noble Lords for taking part. I wish I could go through this in detail, but it is not my remit to do so. I thank noble Lords so much for their support.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her very kind and generous words, and for making it clear that she will not move her amendment. I reassure all noble Lords that their words are on record and will have a bearing and influence on the development of the patient safety commissioner as it is rolled out.
My noble friend’s question was about timing and speed. I hear her admonishments loud and clear. She knows that once we have committed to something we will deliver it. I ask for her forbearance. There is a global pandemic on. I cannot guarantee that this is the number one priority because we need to do the vaccine and we have to get Britain back on its feet. Those are distractions that I cannot hide from the House, but I reassure my noble friend and all those involved in the debate that a commitment has been made very clearly and we are now moving to deliver it.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and others have said, these amendments relate to sunset provisions and consolidated legislation. As we have already heard, the Bill is largely a skeleton Bill and allows the Secretary of State or a relevant authority to make legislation by statutory instrument on policy issues relating to human medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices. Can the Minister confirm whether the SIs referred to will come before the House? Will he also confirm that the SIs we see will live up to the expectations of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his committee?
It is important that there is a limit on how long the delegated powers should last. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, would mean that, after the suggested three years have elapsed, the policy objectives of the Government would be clearer and they could return with primary legislation. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would require the Government to publish the consolidated primary legislation in draft form. We support these measures but, for the intervening period, we believe that the powers should be subject to the additional scrutiny required by my noble friend Lord Sharkey’s amendments in the next group.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for an extremely powerful session on these amendments. I confess that I completely share the aspiration voiced by many noble Lords about Britain having the best possible legislation on life sciences in the world. As the Life Sciences Minister, that is a natural ambition, but it is also a real possibility, and it is what we are working towards at the department, and through the Bill. But I have severe reservations about whether this approach is the right mechanism, and I would like to address those directly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has tabled Amendment 2, which relates to the sunset clause, and with this amendment it would be convenient to speak to Amendments 26, 27, 39, 40 and 63. I will come to Amendment 2 shortly but, first, I cannot say that Amendment 26 is a big surprise. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, who authored it, indicated as much when he and other noble Lords discussed these matters after the excellent debate in Grand Committee. The intent of his amendment is to require the Government to publish draft legislation within three years—legislation that consolidates medicines and medical devices regulation. I understand the arguments made during Committee, and again here today, that the regulation could benefit from clarification and those arguments made on how secondary legislation could be used. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, go further. They would append a sunset clause after three years—I repeat, three years—requiring not draft legislation but passed legislation.
I start by addressing the timing put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asks for the Government to publish draft legislation within three years of Royal Assent. I assume that he intends this consolidation effort to include changes made under the delegated powers in the Bill, including policy that may be made to, for example, take forward a national falsified medicines scheme. The noble Baroness’s amendment would have the delegated powers lapse entirely, leaving us without the ability to amend or supplement the regulatory regimes at that point. In reality, three years between Royal Assent and draft legislation ready for publication that consolidates the existing legislation and includes any changes made under the Bill is just not long enough. Each change to the regulatory regimes will take time. Public consultation must be conducted and amending regulations must be laid, debated and so on. We do not intend—in fact, it would not be possible—to front-load policy changes into the first half of 2021, let alone 2021 at all.
Noble Lords have spoken to the importance of consultation. I say it would not just be the Government front-loading legislation; it would be about asking the affected sectors to engage with a lot of consultation very quickly and in parallel. That does not seem the right way to go about it at all. It inevitably means that the sorts of exciting policy changes that support our life sciences sector and protect patients will take an enormous amount of time to stand up. Developing and consulting on policy proposals that require legislative changes takes time, as does the drafting of any proposed legislation. Before getting to the point of drafting the legislation and so on, you need to have made an assessment of what it would be appropriate to consolidate —and that takes time.
The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 were the product of a consolidation exercise that required extensive consultation. Consultations were run while explanatory documents setting out changes so far, and so on, were all prepared before the regulations were made. Let me be clear on the timescale involved in that exercise. A concept paper was issued by the MHRA in 2009. There was an expectation that consolidating human medicines regulations, including looking at the Medicines Act 1968, would take around three years to complete. That concept paper was put out to consultation; a response was published and further consultation took place in 2010.
The first complete draft of the regulations was published in August 2010 and a number of specific consultations also run in that year. A further consultation, following the consultation on the draft regulations of August, was run between October 2011 and January 2012. Three years is the time it takes to do the comprehensive exercise that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, alludes to in his amendment, and that exercise did not involve making up new primary legislation in the first place: it resulted in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. The noble Lord has extended his amendments to medical devices and veterinary medicines as well.
The noble Lord cannot mean us to start a review the day after this Act is given Royal Assent, with the intention of bringing forward proposals within three years. There would be no legislation made under the Act to assess. I cannot see an exercise of seeing what to consolidate and then preparing the drafting taking less than a year altogether. In fact, it would more likely take much longer if the consolidation is intended to be as far-reaching as the noble Lord and others have very powerfully indicated. Taken together, the noble Lord’s amendments would mean that the process would need to start by 2022, but not all the legislative change to be brought forward under the Bill’s powers would yet be made and in effect.
I anticipate that a consolidation exercise as proposed by the noble Lord would wish to consider the practical effects and operation of such a complex and comprehensive body of legislation. In order to do that, we would need time for the secondary legislation to be made to deliver policy. Industry then has to comply with revised regulatory changes and the MHRA needs to assess how it works. This does not, as the noble Lord may recognise, amount to a realistic exercise. We will not have all the pieces to assess before he asks us to conduct the assessment and also provide an alternative. Change takes time. The standstill period for medical devices, for example, lasts two and a half years, in recognition of this, so while some changes are likely to be made to the regulatory regimes within three years, some will not. When his proposal amounts to no more than a year of operable amending legislation to assess and consolidate—perhaps less—it is therefore impracticable.
This issue is compounded by the noble Baroness’s Amendments 2, 27 and 40, which would introduce a sunset clause to the regulation-making powers in Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill, in effect creating a new cliff edge at the end of three years, after which the existing regulatory regimes cannot be updated. If what the noble Baroness seeks is similar to what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, seeks—an assessment of whether secondary legislation is the right place for the regulatory regimes—I say to her that the means simply do not fit the ends. Introducing a cliff edge in legislation is unhelpful. It forces legislation on to the timescale of a sunset clause. It does not allow for pandemics or for the consideration of new developments that arise and need to be addressed.
The noble Baroness’s amendments would further compress the timescale, stripping out another year. Working back from a sunset clause of three years’ time, we would need Royal Assent of a new Act by then. Let us be generous and provide for a year of parliamentary scrutiny. We began this Bill in February last year; it is January now and we must allow parliamentary drafters to do their job of translating policy intent into clauses. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord have both argued in favour of a very different drafting approach: let us give them, say, a year. While that may seem a long time, I suggest that many noble Lords have experienced the challenges of drafting amendments. There are questions about intent and about the choice of language, and these would apply to tens and possibly hundreds of clauses. Suddenly, that time is not very long at all. That then leaves us with a year from Royal Assent to begin the drafting process—not even the assessment process. All the problems I have already mentioned, including the inability to set up a regime to assess and not only pass legislation but implement that legislation, apply, but much more urgently.
We must also consider the impact on those who are being regulated. The arguments I advanced in Committee on the uncertainty that this would create for businesses, manufacturers and, importantly, patients apply very gravely but would become even more critical. In effect, we would be making regulation in 2021—potentially substantive, bold new regulation to protect patients from harm and ensure the highest standards of safety for medical devices—but we would also be saying that this would be immediately under review, and potentially completely rewritten within three years. The new policy to be delivered by these regulatory changes would not be able to come into force, be implemented and enforced before we would be back here again. I simply cannot think that this is good regulation.
I am sympathetic to the issue of how Parliament assesses our plans. There are, of course, avenues open to Parliament to consider whether it wishes to express a view to the Government on any particular topic. We have Select Committees to scrutinise government policy and we have provided for a reporting requirement in the Bill that gives Parliament the opportunity to reflect on the legislation we have made under the Bill in the first two years and any plans we have at that point to make further changes in response to concerns and proposals raised in relation to it. There are institutions such as the Law Commission that can be called upon to take a view on whether legislation is the right legislation, or too complex. However, if noble Lords want me to say, “In three years, we will have made changes under this Bill that are right to consolidate, and we will be in a position then to review and assess and produce something for Parliament to look at,” I simply cannot give them that assurance; nor can I say anything similar to the noble Baroness.
We need to make changes to the regulatory regimes and follow the full and thorough processes to do so, including public consultation and, most likely, draft affirmative amending regulations. We need to have them working, understood and operable by industry and the regulators. Getting that up and running is where I think we need to direct our resources, before we can think about reviews of how it works. To that end, I hope the noble Baroness understands why I am not able to concede here. I hope she feels able to withdraw her amendment and that the noble Lord will not feel compelled to press his.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that. The words, “Yes, Minister” came to mind. It was a very long, wordy way of saying no, but I suppose he had to say it. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for their support and their speeches, as well as my noble friend Lord Hunt and other noble Lords. I particularly agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. Although we may disagree about sunset clauses, he absolutely hit the nail on the head about the need for consolidation. We link these together because we think there needs to be a time limit.
The Minister said absolutely nothing about what he thinks may happen next. It is simply not acceptable, and the House of Lords scrutiny committees—the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers Committee—said that it is not acceptable, democratic, accountable or even safe to continue to run this area of public policy simply by regulation. Since the Minister and the Government have not brought forward anything that actually tackles that problem, that is what this suite of amendments seeks to do. All the discussion we have had in the past hour tells me that we are right to do this.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who mentioned the Law Commission during our discussions about this, that that is a bit of a phantom. We all know that the Law Commission works on a three- to four-year cycle. It is a law unto itself: the Government cannot instruct the Law Commission to do anything, quite rightly. That may or may not be the right way forward, but it could take 10 or 15 years: it certainly does not hurry itself. So, in theory it is quite a nice idea, but I suspect that it would probably not work within the time limits we have before us.
I listened carefully to the Minister. It was a classic explanation of why something cannot be done and, on that basis, since the Minister seems to think that nothing can be done, I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and I are not in a competition about who can speak most briefly, but we have promised the Minister that we will—I overshot my promised three minutes by a minute in an earlier speech.
I say from these Benches that we will support this amendment and we are very pleased to be doing so. I reread the debate and discussion in Grand Committee, and I was actually so impressed with my remarks that I am nearly tempted to read them out again, but I will not do so. I also have to say that the whole debate was very good and important.
As my noble friend Lord Hunt says, this is not just about this Bill; this is about how the Government intend to move forward in terms of legislation and policy and subject themselves to appropriate scrutiny. That is what this amendment is about, in our view, and that is why we will support it.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I will breach the convention on short speeches, but only because this has been an incredibly powerful debate. The points were made very thoughtfully, and I am grateful for the fact that they were made briefly. I want to tackle them head on and perhaps, I hope, persuade the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to back off from these amendments.
Lord Bethell
“(2) In making regulations under subsection (1), the appropriate authority’s overarching objective must be safeguarding public health.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the appropriate authority’s overarching objective in making regulations under Clause 1 must be safeguarding public health.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, one of the key qualities of this place is bringing to bear years of expertise in refining legislation. From those involved in life sciences to ex-Health Ministers, we have between us cumulative decades of experience. In moving this amendment, it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendments 6, 8, 9, 11, 29, 30 to 33, 42 to 45 and 47.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading, who have written, who have met with me and who spoke in Grand Committee on the fundamental points that we are discussing now through Amendment 4: how we ensure that we have the powers needed to make regulatory changes to the bodies of law that govern medicines and medical devices; how we ensure that the changes are swift and safe, and support the continued availability of medicines and devices; how we ensure that essential changes are practicable in a fast-paced environment; and how we provide confidence in the checks and balances built into the framework in which these powers can be exercised.
The amendments that I have tabled are the result of detailed talks. I pay tribute in particular to my noble friend Lord Lansley, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Their amendments in Grand Committee can be seen as the seeds from which my amendments have grown. I say “my amendments” but I view them as a collective effort—an evolution from our discussions in Grand Committee and refined through cross-party conversation. I will come to and address the noble Baroness’s amendments to my amendments, where I hope I can provide further assurances.
As I have said before, this Bill is a framework Bill. It is so because we must have powers that allow us to work with the comprehensive and established regulatory regimes that already exist. We must also have the means to respond effectively, swiftly and appropriately to questions asked. My noble friend Lord Blencathra and his committee asked us very politely to look again at our drafting, and noble Lords suggested that the Bill needed to move from a skeleton Bill to a true framework Bill.
Amendments 4, 6, 8, 9 and 11 make a number of important changes to the regulation-making powers in Clause 1. They provide for the overarching objective sought by my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. When exercising the power to make regulations, they are to be made in pursuit of the objective of safeguarding public health. That provides all the benefits that my noble friend set out in Committee—an objective test. I do not propose to dwell long on this, as my noble friend explained it so eloquently when he proposed his own amendment then.
However, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has put forward Amendment 5, which would alter the wording of that overarching objective. This would amend the objective from safeguarding “public health” to safe- guarding
“the health and safety of the public”.
This was, as she knows, the original language of the government amendment in Grand Committee. I expect that the noble Baroness is querying rather than pressing us on this drafting. I say to her that, in the spirit of collegiate drafting, we have adopted the language proposed by my noble friend Lord Lansley. He made a good argument in Committee; we have listened. It was repeated during our conversations outside Committee, and we saw this amendment as a product of the whole House rather than simply the Government. I hope that that answers her questions here.
Turning back to the government amendments, they update the considerations that must be given regard to in pursuit of that objective. Noble Lords did not find the clarification of “attractiveness of the UK” clear enough. A number of alternatives were proposed, setting out the sorts of activities that noble Lords thought were good things to promote. My amendment does away with “attractiveness” and supplies a consolidated list of the sorts of activities that we hope the UK will be seen as a favourable place to undertake. This is absolutely in line with the Government’s intention to support the life sciences sector that we have now and to encourage innovation and interest in the UK as a good place to do business in future.
Among others, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, made salient points about the importance of safety. While there has never been any intention that making the UK attractive to the life sciences sector should make patients less safe, we have provided for a clear and unambiguous lock on patient safety—that is, as part of the decision-making process behind regulatory changes, if proposed changes have an impact on the safety of human medicines, the appropriate authority may make those changes only if the benefits outweigh the risks.
This is very clear. There may, as I said earlier during the Bill’s passage, be instances where we do need to make changes that deregulate to ensure the supply of medicines. We have made changes to address the rollout of a vaccination programme; that is absolutely the right thing to do. It requires an assessment of the risks by the experts and requires the benefit—a benefit that the noble Lords who spoke to me at length on this agreed was present—to outweigh the risks. Equally, there is regulatory change that may have no impact at all on safety.
In Amendments 12, 34 and 48, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, presses me on the criteria for making this assessment of risks and benefits and on whether the Government will publish that assessment. On the latter point, I can assure her that the amendments made in Committee entirely provide for this. We have already committed to publishing our initial assessment of proposals when we go out to public consultation. That will be the first exposure of our thinking on all aspects, not just risks and benefits. It will be open for persons who respond to that consultation to disagree with us. On the basis of that consultation, we will publish an Explanatory Memorandum when we lay the regulations. There will be ample opportunity to check our homework.
On the criteria, it will not be news to the noble Baroness when I talk of the challenge of specifying a single set of criteria that could apply for the assessment of the risks and benefits of all changes, when regulations may make vastly different changes to the existing regimes. I know that we spoke about these issues with other noble Lords during the discussions preceding Report. I simply do not think that this is necessary or helpful. When the Secretary of State makes amending or supplementary regulatory changes, the Minister will take advice, including from the host of experts inside the MHRA and the VMD, whose day-to-day responsibility it is to protect safety. We have all heard from the excellent Dr June Raine on the importance of safety. It makes sense to take a sensible approach to assessment, particularly in the light of the fact that we will set it out in the ways I have spoken to.
I am very pleased that we have arrived at a formulation that works. It is practicable and good legislation at the same time. Amendments 29 to 33 repeat this set of changes in relation to the regulation-making powers at Clause 9 for veterinary medicines—with an important distinction. The difference relates to how the overarching objective is formulated. This reflects the material differences and choices made for the regulation of veterinary medicines, such as reserving certain medicines for use in humans to avoid further antimicrobial resistance. It is right that we have an objective but that that objective works in this context. It is also right that the same lock on safety is applied.
Amendments 42 to 45 and 47 would apply the same framework to the regulation-making power in Clause 14 in relation to medical devices. When making amending and supplementary changes to the regulation of devices, it provides a separate but similar list of activities that we would wish to be seen as favourable, including the addition of carrying out research on medical devices. In the light of our debate in Committee and the debate we have ahead of us on the importance of medical technologies, this inclusion is absolutely right.
I do not propose to take significant time speaking to Amendments 73 and 94. They both make minor changes, but for an intent with which I do not think any noble Lord would disagree. In the interests of clarity, Amendment 73 would require a consultation on regulations under Clauses 1, 9 or 14 to include a summary of the assessment of the person making the regulations of all matters mentioned in these clauses. Amendment 94 serves to clarify the commencement of the definition of “human medicines provision” at Clause 5.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely concur with the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. This has been a fascinating debate but I will restrict my comments to a few specifics in answering some of the questions raised by noble Lords. I shall start by talking briefly about risks and benefits, which I hope will provide further reassurances to noble Lords regarding their questions on these points.
A regulatory change that, for example, makes changes similar to those made to ensure the smooth vaccination programme for Covid-19, will require different assessment to those that change the medical devices regulatory regime to step up scrutiny of medical devices. The noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar, spent some time in Committee speaking to the importance of medical device regulation, and I agree with them. The amendments that I have tabled are silent on whether the impact on safety must be negative or positive to have the “lock” kick in. It applies to both.
However, it will come down to what the change is in order to determine what constitutes a risk in that scenario versus a benefit. That is obvious in the case of the Covid vaccine rollout. There is greater benefit to a smooth rollout of the vaccine programme than the risk of increasing the number of healthcare professionals who can deliver it. Risks can be mitigated, and they should be. Changes can also be highly technical. They may affect the safety of medicines or medical devices in a minor way but not to the same degree or extent as other changes. It would be impracticable to develop criteria that apply in all circumstances to all regulatory changes.
In response to my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, I should reassure him that it is not our intention to in any way water down or reduce standards in the life sciences area. Instead, it is our intention to use this legislation to champion the UK’s wonderful life sciences sector.
We have often spoken of safety—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her words on that matter—and of the vital importance of the regulator putting this at the heart of its work. Our regulator is stuffed full of scientists and experts. They are able to support the Secretary of State in making that assessment, based on the evidence. Would this change impact the highly regulated safety considerations, and are they the right ones to make? We need to empower those experts to make those recommendations, in specific circumstances. I hope that noble Lords agree with me that the Bill is better for the changes that we have already sought to make, that the questions behind these further changes are answered, and that we have reached a point of conclusion.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
That debate was definitely worth having, notwithstanding the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, explained the process that we had gone through when discussing what to do and how to improve the Bill regarding these aspects. They were important discussions. The noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, asked pertinent questions that the Minister has answered and are now on the record. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for explaining why we felt that it was important to have this discussion. I also thank other noble Lords for their remarks and the support they have given. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bethell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the Minister’s name substituting Clause 1(2).
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his full and comprehensive explanation of the background thinking behind this amendment. It is clearly important that we understand and have clarity about the scope of Clause 3, and it is that clarity we seek from the Minister this evening. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, we are urging the Minister to respond about how Clause 3 might be used. It is not good practice when you are law-making to put something in a Bill that might just come in useful at some point. The House probably needs a wider explanation and reassurance about this clause and how it will be used.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful for that helpful debate. Let me try to provide some of the clarity and reassurances noble Lords have sought. Amendment 14 to Clause 3 would add constraints to the use of data collected as part of the operation of any national falsified medicines scheme. I understand that the intention of Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is to prevent the use of data collected for any additional use other than for the purpose of ensuring patient safety. We discussed this at length in Committee and afterwards, and I am grateful to the noble Lord and to other noble Lords who have given up their time to discuss this important issue. I know that the noble Lord has returned to this because he thinks it is worth continued debate, so I would like to reassure him that we have thought very carefully indeed about the power in Clause 3(1)(b).
I will start with the context of the power to use information collected as part of any potential future national falsified medicines scheme. First, it is important to note that the overarching principles of the Bill set out in Clause 1 also apply to, and are constrained by, the powers in Clause 3.
Amendment 4 in my name would ensure that in making regulatory changes under Clause 3—not just around how information will be used—the appropriate authority’s overarching objective must be safeguarding public health. In making that assessment, one of the things the appropriate authority must have regard to is the safety of medicines. Further, we have provided for a clear and unambiguous lock on patient safety; that is, as part of the decision-making process behind regulatory changes, if proposed changes have an impact on the safety of human medicines, the appropriate authority may make those changes only if the benefits outweigh the risks.
Secondly, of course, any regulations providing a framework for the use of the information will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the draft affirmative procedure. So, the scope of Clause 3(1)(b), which is the focus of our discussion, is not unfettered. I have discussed previously the statutory requirement to consult before making regulatory changes. Powers at Clause 3(1)(a), (2) and (3) will provide us with the means to make the regulatory changes to establish a verification system, if appropriate. As part of the effective operation of any such system, information will need to be collected. It is only once we have established the need for a verification system, and how it could work, that we can fully consider how the information it collects could be used to deliver additional benefits for the UK and for patients. Clause 3(1)(b) and (3) enable us to make appropriate best use of the data collected as part of a national focused scheme and ensure that the appropriate authority must have regard to the importance of ensuring that information is retained securely.
I want to reassure noble Lords by being as clear as I can that the data in question is that which would be collected for the prevention of the supply of falsified medicines—that is, as part of the operation of any verification scheme. I reassure noble Lords that we could not expand the data being collected using Clause 3(1)(b) as part of a verification scheme. However, we want to maximise the use of data collected as part of any verification scheme where it is in the public interest. In this, we would be learning from the EU scheme, which, for example, allows data to be used beyond patient safety for reimbursement purposes and in delivering a solution that works at a national level. I reassure the Chamber by being as clear as I can be that the powers in Clause 3 do not include the collection of patient data. As with the current European scheme, there are no plans for any future national falsified medicines system to collect patient data.
My concern is that putting such a limit on the use of information at this time could constrain or limit options ahead of our engagement with stakeholders. Critically, it may not allow for the data to be used for all potential research purposes. We are not in a position at this moment, ahead of our engagement with stakeholders, to list all the potential ways in which data sources might be combined for research and wider public health purposes, which can go beyond patient safety. We want to be guided by our stakeholder engagement and not to restrict that process unnecessarily before we have had a chance to hear how this data could be used for public interest purposes.
We are also proposing a staged approach to engagement and consultation. We are committing to a clear and separate consultation and engagement: first, a consultation around the need for and details of any system concerned with the prevention of falsified medicines; and secondly, a specific consultation around other uses of the data collected under Clause 3(1)(b). As I have said, any regulatory changes that will provide a framework for the use of the information would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the draft affirmative procedure.
I believe that by developing these proposals through consultation and engagement, we are improving our policy-making and its subsequent implementation. I remind the House that we have no scope for changing these provisions at Third Reading, so if the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wants to press the matter, he will need to do that today, but I hope instead that he will have had enough clarity and reassurances from the Dispatch Box to be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
I thank my noble friend Lady Jolly, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for their helpful contributions and support today. I also thank the Minister for his reply; I regard it as something of a curate’s egg, but I recognise the thought that has gone into it, particularly his statement on the overarching principles in Clause 1 governing Clause 3 and the fact that the benefits must outweigh the risks in any scheme. He talked about the affirmative procedure; I very much hope that we will retain the super-affirmative procedure, which encourages me that there will be greater scrutiny of any new framework.
The Minister also spoke about the statutory duty to consult on proposals and the duty to secure data. He said that no patient data was being used and that, at the end of the day, the essence of this is to maximise the use of data where it is in the public interest. He gave research as an example that might be outside patient safety—I doubt it, but he thought it might be interpreted as going beyond patient safety. I was very struck by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, saying that there was an element in this of having a power that might come in useful; indeed, the Minister almost repeated that in saying, “We’ll see what data we have collected.”
I take some comfort from what the Minister has said. We have had some very productive debates and some important amendments secured, so I will not press this amendment today. However, the noble Lord probably has to suffer the potential of being immortalised on a Pepper v Hart basis if there is any subsequent dispute about the width of regulations made under this clause and whether Clause 1 limits the scope of Clause 3. I am sure he looks forward to that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.