Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Baroness Penn Excerpts

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

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I do not think that I need to say much in response to the remarks that were, I think, unanimous in their support for my amendment and the other amendments in the group. The cap on the sentence is not a good enough response by the Government. Earlier in our debates, I made a remark about amendments designed to circumvent; I am afraid that the government amendments before us are exactly that kind of amendment. They will not serve, I am afraid.

Unless the Government are prepared, as I hope they are, to table amendments that actually solve the problems and address the issues raised by the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—they could not have been clearer on this issue: in this country, we do not set up criminal offences and their sentences by delegated legislation—there is nothing more for me to say, other than that I hope the Government will think again.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, it is perhaps appropriate if I begin by speaking to the government amendments—Amendments 43, 44, 64 and 65 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell —in this group. In doing so, I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his committee’s report. As previously noted, we have listened to that report, and the changes that we propose through these amendments are intended to address the specific concern in that report regarding penalties for existing criminal offences.

As drafted, Clause 5(1)(b) already provides a restriction limiting the maximum penalty to imprisonment for two years when creating a criminal offence. The DPRRC asked us to explain whether the penalties for existing offences could be amended when there was no maximum specified in the Bill. I want to be clear that we do not intend to increase the penalties for existing offences.

Amendments 43 and 44 would work together to amend Clause 5. They make it clear that, under Clause 1, we may not make regulations that provide for a criminal offence to be punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment. This will apply to both new and existing criminal offences. For veterinary medicines, Amendments 64 and 65 seek to achieve the same by amending Clause 10.

The government amendments will, I hope, remove any concern that powers in Clauses 1 or 8 could be used to make regulations extending sentences for existing offences beyond two years’ imprisonment.

I now turn to Amendment 4 and the other amendments in this group to which noble Lords have spoken. The ability to enforce breaches of the regime governing medicines is a power originally conferred on the Secretary of State in the interest of protecting public health. This was introduced by the Medicines Act 1968 and provisions around offences are found throughout the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. They are also contained in the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013.

Offences deter potentially harmful activity and make it possible to take punitive measures against those whose actions put people, animals and the environment at risk. As we make necessary updates to the regulatory requirements, we must be able to remain consistent with the current enforcement regime, which already imposes criminal sanctions. It would not be right that a person may face a criminal sanction for breaching current requirements but not for breaching new regulatory requirements, for example relating to novel technologies and medicines. As with other changes to provisions, making changes to offences will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, and we will make offences proportionate and necessary. It is imperative that we are able to balance novel regulation with enforcement of that regulation.

It cannot be ignored that crime involving medicines is increasing. Furthermore, criminal activities adapt to new environments and technology. In recent months we have seen opportunistic criminals selling online unauthorised and unapproved medicines and devices for the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of Covid-19, including antimalarials, self-testing kits, “miracle cures” and “antiviral misting sprays”, which could cause harm and unnecessary stress to patients. Enforcement capabilities must be able to keep pace with criminal exploitation. Delegated powers afford us our continued ability to enforce the regulatory requirements for medicines and devices for public protection. To be effective, they must be enforceable.

The Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 contain numerous criminal offences for breaches of the regulations; again, this is for the purposes of enforcement. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s enforcement strategy is risk-based; it focuses on proportionality, consistency, transparency and targeting. The VMD works with businesses and individuals to assist them in complying with the legislation through the provision of advice and guidance. However, where necessary the VMD will use more formal means of enforcement to secure compliance. It is critical that we have the delegated powers to enforce this.

We have always been clear that we are trying to provide greater clarity on how to enforce the regulations on medical devices. The regulator’s ability to have teeth when we are looking to raise medical device safety standards in future is essential. The report from my noble friend Lady Cumberlege tells us that.

The Bill is also clear on the maximum time limit for imprisonment, which applies to any new criminal offence introduced. This limit matches the current system for devices, where criminal offences for medical devices are already punishable for up to six months. The devices regulations are in place to protect public health; breaches of those regulations put people at risk and can cause significant harm. It is only appropriate that there is a clear consequence for any such actions, including potential criminal prosecutions. We will of course have regulations subject to the duty to consult at Clause 41, which will mean the public have the opportunity to comment on the necessity and proportionality of the approach.

I hope the necessity of enforcing the new regulations, and the safeguards the government amendments have provided, persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment 4 and others not to move theirs.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for his comprehensive introduction to this group of amendments, particularly those that he is supporting.

We are minus at least four noble Lords from this debate because of the clash with the other Bill. I have certainly made my view known to the usual channels in the next booth that we cannot continue to discuss this Bill in those circumstances because we will be missing too many people who have a stake in the Bill and amendments down. I cannot imagine what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is saying to his own Benches about this—actually, I probably can, and it will not be polite, I suspect. He put his name down to this amendment and, presumably, found out that he was not allowed to speak in both the Second Reading debate and in this Committee at the same time. I can see why that rule is there, but we are finding that this really does not work.

While the affirmative procedure offers nothing like the scrutiny given to a Bill, which typically goes through several substantive stages in each House and can be amended, we agree wholeheartedly with the DPRRC’s view that Clauses 1, 8 and 12 contain inappropriate delegations of power. We are where we are, and we therefore take the view that the affirmative procedure should apply. Amendment 134 provides for all regulations to be made subject to the draft affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure and for urgent regulations to be subject to the made affirmative procedure rather than negative procedure.

Both the DPRR Committee and the Constitution Committee have expressed considerable concern at the inappropriate use of the negative procedure in this Bill. For example, Clause 2(1)(n) provides that regulations under Clause 1 may make provision about prohibitions relating to the supply of human medicines. Clause 42(9) provides for such regulations to be subject to the negative procedure. The explanation given for this in the memorandum, which I think I referred to in the very first debate in this Committee, is as follows:

“proposals to make changes to existing provisions, or to introduce new provisions enabling the supply, administration or prescribing of medicines are made to reflect shifts in best practice following extensive consideration and scrutiny by the relevant professional bodies.”

The DPRRC found this an unconvincing explanation. I probably do as well. It noted:

“It isn’t clear why consultation with relevant professional bodies lessens the requirement for scrutiny in Parliament. Indeed, if proposed changes are sufficiently important for there to be extensive consideration and scrutiny by professional bodies, this supports requiring the higher level of scrutiny in Parliament that the affirmative procedure affords. Furthermore, the prohibitions to which clause 2(1)(n) applies are sufficiently important that breach of them is a criminal offence (punishable, in the case of 4 of the 5 prohibitions, by imprisonment for up to two years). Even accepting the appropriateness of the delegation of powers in clause 1, we take the view that the affirmative procedure should apply. The consultation requirement imposed by clause 41 of the Bill is to be welcomed but we are concerned at consultation being presented as a substitute for Parliamentary scrutiny. On the contrary, if the exercise of the power is of sufficient importance to merit extensive consultation, it is of sufficient importance to warrant the higher level of Parliamentary scrutiny which the affirmative procedure affords.”


The committee also highlighted and raised concerns about Clause 9(1)(f), which provides that regulations under Clause 8 may make provision about the categories of person who may apply for veterinary medicines. The EM states:

“any proposals to make changes to existing powers or to introduce new powers for veterinary professionals to supply, administer or prescribe medicines will be subject to extensive consideration and scrutiny by professional bodies”.

Again, the committee found this unconvincing for the same reason, and took the view that the affirmative procedure still applies. I must say, I wholeheartedly agree with its assessment. As it says,

“if the exercise of the power is of sufficient importance to merit extensive consultation, it is of sufficient importance to warrant the higher level of Parliamentary scrutiny which the affirmative procedure affords.”

My amendment also addressed the egregious provisions of Clause 42 that provide that where any such regulation needs to be made urgently to protect the public from imminent risk of serious harm to health, the negative procedure applies instead. The Government’s justification for departing from the affirmative procedure was that:

“It is appropriate for regulations made in these circumstances to be subject to the negative resolution so that they can come into force immediately and provide an efficient means of addressing an imminent serious public health risk. We expect that such regulations would only need to be in place for a very short period of time, potentially shorter than it would take to schedule and hold debates”.


This is wholly inadequate.

The DPRRC stated:

“We are wholly dissatisfied by departments repeatedly arguing for powers otherwise subject to the affirmative procedure to be subject to the negative procedure where there is a need to act quickly, and seeking to justify this without acknowledging the existence of the made affirmative procedure … Even accepting the appropriateness of the delegation of powers in clauses 1 and 12, if the affirmative procedure provides the appropriate level of Parliamentary scrutiny for regulations made in reliance on clauses 6 or 15 in non-urgent cases then, in the absence of cogent reasons for the negative procedure to apply in urgent cases, we take the view that the made affirmative procedure should apply in urgent cases.”


The Constitution Committee concurred, recommending that

“the emergency powers in this Bill are subject to the made affirmative procedure, rather than the negative procedure, such that Parliament is required actively to approve them.”

The Minister will be well aware that regulations under the “made affirmative” procedure can be made and laid as expeditiously as can regulations subject to the negative procedure. They can also be laid during a parliamentary recess, unlike draft affirmative instruments. Quite frankly, it is insulting that the Government have the gall to argue for emergency powers to be subject to less scrutiny under the negative procedure, especially in the current climate when hundreds of emergency regulations have been introduced with considerable haste using the “made affirmative” procedure. Can the Minister say how this dereliction ever made it into the Bill, never mind through the Commons? I imagine that the Minister might be quite embarrassed to put her name to the Bill, which is perhaps why the Government have introduced Amendment 133 at the 11th hour.

I also speak in support of the super-affirmative amendments in the name of the Lord, Lord Sharkey. They are supported by Members across the House—including my noble friend Lady Andrews who is not here to give her support although she is extremely enthusiastic about this amendment.

Given that this is a skeleton Bill, the use of the super-affirmative procedure seems a sensible and proportionate mechanism. In this case, it would allow relevant parliamentary committees, in consultation with stakeholders, opportunities to comment on proposals for secondary legislation and to recommend amendments before orders for affirmative approval are brought forward in their final form. It has been used effectively by Governments of all colours, who recognise that it allows them flexibility when they need to bring forward regulations, while consultation and scrutiny happen before any amendments come to the House by affirmative resolution.

That is particularly important given that many areas in which we expect regulations to be laid, ranging from life sciences and clinical trials to hub and spoke pharmaceutical models, could make the contents of the SIs—and, in the absence of policy details in the Bill, even examples of draft regulation that have been published in respect of other Brexit legislation—controversial. I hope that the Minister recognises the merit of this proposal.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I will begin by speaking to government Amendment 133 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bethell. It provides significant changes that I know many will welcome. We have listened to the concerns raised about parliamentary scrutiny on emergency powers. I assure noble Lords that we have carefully considered their views and the different amendments that have been put forward on this topic.

As a result, government Amendment 133 would change applicable parliamentary procedure for reactive emergency regulations to the “made affirmative” procedure. It also provides that regulations about prescribing, advertising, packaging and labelling in relation to human and veterinary medicines will no longer be subject to the negative resolution procedure, but instead to the draft affirmative procedure. Using the “made affirmative” procedure when making regulations reactively in emergency situations affords the Government the required speed and flexibility to react to emergencies while providing that Parliament can scrutinise what has been done and why. When we make the regulations proactively, we must demonstrate the need to protect the public from the risk of serious harm; these regulations will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure.

It is important to acknowledge that the emergency powers are not intended to be used. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, we are in a situation where we are currently using emergency powers, so she is correct that the “made affirmative” procedure has been put to good effect during the current pandemic. None the less, these powers are a measure of last resort to protect the public from the risk of serious harm to health.

We want to avoid using the powers reactively where possible. It is already a condition in the regulations that the situation must be accompanied by a declaration of the urgent need to protect against the imminent risk of serious harm to health. I note the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about the definition of that statement. I will write to him further on that matter.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I call the Minister to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Patel.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord’s comments reflect the themes that we are discussing throughout our scrutiny of the Bill. I certainly take them on board with regard to this group of amendments, I believe that we have discussed them before and will discuss them again on other groups of amendments.

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

Finally, I call the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to respond to the debate on his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Weighty matters of this nature are dealt with by the usual channels; the Government Whip will respond.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that the need to rise at a set time is part of the needs of the hybrid House. With other Grand Committees that have taken place in this circumstance, we have made progress on groups and had to adjourn mid-group. That is incredibly important in order to make progress on legislation when we are operating to time-constrained sessions.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I have to register my objection to that. If we want a proper debate, this is not just about people making timed speeches; it is about a debate. A debate should be a coherent whole, not one or two speeches and then continuing after maybe a week’s break. Would I be allowed to make my opening speech again when we go back on the second day of Committee?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, we would not have a second opening speech. If the noble Baroness has strong objections, we can adjourn.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I think we should. This is an important debate and we need it as a whole debate. I would be very grateful if that could be considered. I promise to make a small speech when we restart.