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

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.

Department of Health and Social Care: Unpaid Advisers

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, yesterday former Conservative Attorney-General Dominic Grieve described the Johnson Government as presiding over

“the disappearance of any standards of conduct at the heart of government”,

and said that the cronyism of administrative decisions had communicated to young people in particular a sense of government as corrupt. Given that, can the Minister be surprised that there was concern over the conduct of Mr Pascoe-Watson after he had ceased to be an adviser?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

I always take the words and advice of former Attorney-General Dominic Grieve extremely seriously, and I value his opinion greatly.

Covid-19 Update

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My noble friend is right that the advice to business is extremely important, and we are ambitious to try to unlock the economy to enable people to return to as normal a life as they possibly can and to prepare the country for Christmas. However, it is too early to tell exactly what the state of the pandemic will be on 2 December. There is a review of the tiering system, and we will learn the lessons of the last round. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that he is committed to returning to a regional tiering system, but the exact dimensions and specifications of that system are under review, and communication to business of how, and to which regions, it will apply will be forthcoming once the analysis of the contagion has been completed.

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

I declare my interest as a member of the GMC board. I return to the Statement made by the Secretary of State, in which he said, referring to NHS staff:

“The deployment of the vaccine will involve working long days and weekends, and that comes on top of all the NHS has already done”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/11/20; cols. 746.]


The noble Lord will be aware that the GMC granted temporary registration to around 27,000 doctors in order to help out with the pandemic crisis. My question is: has the department considered using these doctors, not many of whom have actually been used by the NHS so far, for the vaccine programme? Will he look into that?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very good point. We pay tribute to all those who stepped forward, whether they were young doctors at the end of their training or older doctors who were returning to the profession. It was a really important and touching moment when those doctors stepped forward. He is right that not all of them were needed or used during the pandemic. My understanding, from the deployment team, is that they are looking at all avenues to have the largest army of people possible in order to use the vaccine. I am not exactly sure of the exact status of the 27,000 doctors he alluded to, but I would be glad to write to him with details.

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.

Covid-19: Dental Services

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, the concern about children is particularly acute. We are especially keen to encourage parents, to ensure that they are still bringing children forward. That is why we have the Help Us to Help You campaign to encourage public access to NHS services. She is entirely right that acute situations—involving, for instance, some form of anaesthetic—provide a particular challenge. We have a prioritisation process in place, and I understand that that is working well to ensure that those who have the greatest need are put at the front of the queue. However, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, I would welcome any feedback from those who think that the system is not working well enough.

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

My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the British Fluoridation Society. Just on that last point, in a number of parts of the country, no elective surgeries, except for those that might be totally prioritised, are being done at the moment. The prospect is of a few more months with a virtual lockdown of elective surgery. As far as children are concerned, will the Minister look into this matter urgently? Will the Government prioritise preventive schemes as we come out of the pandemic, such as fluoridation, supervised tooth-brushing programmes in schools and public service ads?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Lord that prevention is the key. In our document on the matter, Advancing Our Health: Prevention in the 2020s, we have committed to the consulting on and rolling out of supervised tooth-brushing schemes in more preschool and primary school settings in England. We have also set out our support for expanding water fluoridation, and we intend to announce further details of our water fluoridation plans shortly.

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”.

Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I have no doubt the latest lockdown will damage the economy, but you can have as many impact assessments as you like; the fact is that, unless we take action, the NHS will simply fall over.

In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, referred to capacity of the NHS to deal with non-Covid treatments. I would like to link that to criticism made by a number of Conservative MPs, who have argued that because hospital intensive care is currently no busier than normal for the majority of trusts, the national lockdown is not justified. I refer them to the statement made today by NHS providers, collating the views of NHS trust chief executives. They put forward three points. First, you cannot just measure the degree of pressure in a hospital just by looking at ICU capacity; you must look at pressures on acute and general beds, which is often greater, partly because many Covid patients are being treated with oxygen therapy on general wards.

Secondly, if NHS hospitals have too many Covid patients over the next two to three months, they will not be able to deal with winter pressures and carry on recovering elective surgery backlogs. Those cases are usually all treated in general and acute wards. Many hospitals are having to turn those wards into Covid beds. This in turn, is threatening elective surgery recovery rates and impacting on ability to cope with winter.

Thirdly, many hospitals are already seeing a frighteningly high level of general bed occupancy. If this pattern, now mainly in the north, is repeated elsewhere, it will coincide with winter, when the NHS is at its most stretched. None of this is reflected or effected by current national intensive care unit bed occupancy rates; in fact, they are irrelevant as far as risk is concerned. The argument for national lockdown therefore fully stands. That is the view of people at the front line of the health service; they need to be listened to.

The only question I have, which is one asked by my noble friends Lady Andrews and Lord Knight, is why the Government did not act in late September following the SAGE advice on 21 September? The more you read the two pages of advice, the more you see it was abundantly clear the circuit breaker was required. I did not hear the Minister refer to that in his introductory remarks. I hope he will respond to that. The point is this; government is not easy at the moment, but they could have taken action six weeks ago. They should have done it.

Blood Safety and Quality (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing and explaining so carefully the statutory instruments. Clearly, as he said, they are very important. The key statement he made, which is repeated in paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum, is:

“Neither the 2019 SIs, nor the 2020 SIs make changes to the safety and quality standards, which will remain the same across the UK from 1 January 2021.”


However, for Northern Ireland, these standards are expressed by reference to EU legislation, whereas for Great Britain they are not; although, at the moment, the substance is the same in both cases. So I ask the Minister: what are the implications of any future change made in EU directives or in UK law? Since we may not stay aligned with the EU, there must be some inevitability, at that stage, of that arising. Will that not then lead to a confusing situation in future where UK regulators are responsible for overseeing different laws in separate parts of the UK? If that is the case, and given that this is a hugely sensitive area, will this inhibit the movement of tissues and organs between Ireland and Great Britain? The Minister mentioned such movement, but will he clarify how much movement there is at the moment?

I would also like to ask the Minister about the six-month transition period from exit day to allow establishments time to put the necessary arrangements into place for importing and exporting tissues and cells with the EU? Is he confident that that is sufficient time for those establishments?

I refer to our recent debate on the Human Tissue Act during the passage of the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill. As the Minister knows from our debate, it is our view at least that the Human Tissue Act does not require appropriate consent for imported human tissue, and, in addition, imported human tissue for use in medical research does not require traceability. Of course, this is very relevant in the case of China and the shocking use of organs of prisoners and minority groups for commercial exportation. I readily acknowledge that we are currently in discussion with the Minister’s department about a suitable amendment to deal with this, but will any such amendment agreed in the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill apply also to Northern Ireland?

I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will speak in some detail on this, but, as I have the opportunity, I would like also to talk about human tissue. As the Minister will know, we have been concerned about the view of the WHO on the practices in China, as it is based upon a self-assessment by China itself. This has been the subject of correspondence between the Government and the World Health Organization. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, has now turned down a freedom of information request from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I want to express my disappointment. This is so important that the Government really ought to publish the correspondence. Having said that, I am very grateful for the opportunity to debate these regulations.

Covid-19: Intensive Care Treatment

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My noble friend is entirely right to chase me in this matter. I remember the commitment very well and I will endeavour to find out from my colleagues at the department how they are doing in getting those important papers into the Library.

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

My Lords, the Minister was very forthright today in rejecting the Sunday Times story. A month ago, he was very forthright in an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, about blanket DNR notices. Picking up on the question today from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, does he think that there might be an issue of communication where staff are working on the front line, where impressions are given that are not in accord with official government policy? In the light of all this, has he given some thought to the way in which communications with NHS staff might be improved in order to deal with these very troubling issues?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

I am not sure that I agree with the implication of the noble Lord’s question—that somehow there is a prejudice on the front line against older people and that staff take it into their own hands to make decisions that are in themselves inherently unfair. That is not my experience. Where the noble Lord absolutely has a point is that people are extremely sensitive about these kinds of issues, and, quite rightly, are deeply concerned that they are going to get the treatment and care that they deserve and will not be subject to any form of unfairness. It is imperative that the NHS builds trusts and conveys a strong communication on these issues. To push back against the noble Lord, it is not my impression that the staff at the NHS have lost sight of this important principle.