All 1 Debates between Baroness Fookes and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Tue 17th Nov 2020
Medicines and Medical Devices Bill
Grand Committee

Committee stage:Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Debate between Baroness Fookes and Lord O'Shaughnessy
Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th November 2020

(4 years ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 View all Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 116-VII(Rev) Revised seventh marshalled list for Grand Committee - (17 Nov 2020)
Baroness Fookes Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
- Hansard - -

I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn, so the next speaker will be the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy.

Lord O'Shaughnessy Portrait Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 108. In doing so, I remind noble Lords of my interests as listed on the register and my membership of the First Do No Harm All-Party Group, set up by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. It seems that the debate and discussion on this issue revolve around the use of “may” or “must”, as is often the case in legislation —we are all familiar with this. I fully understand why the Bill uses the word “may” in relation to concerns as set out currently in the clause because, as described, they involve ambiguity. That is implicit in the way the clause is framed. It therefore requires judgment about the balance of risks, which is difficult to prejudge.

It seems that Amendment 108 is a build, as they say, on this and an elegant solution to the existence of a higher-risk category of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege have talked about. It would leave “may” in place for when ambiguity exists, but would introduce “must” when, in their words,

“there is a clear threat to public safety”,

which is the highest category of risk. It seems unconscionable to think that, when there is knowledge of such risks, they should not be communicated; indeed, there should be, if there is not already, an obligation to do so. Consequently, I feel that this amendment improves on the Bill. It seems perfectly logical and rational to me, and I hope my noble friend the Minister will be sympathetic.

Baroness Fookes Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
- Hansard - -

I next call the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and I dare say that there will be a little pause before she speaks.