Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

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

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I was privileged to speak at some length about the provisions of this Bill in Grand Committee, and I thank those who supported the amendments in my name, which concerned the role of cutting-edge, data-driven medical devices. The Minister has since reassured me of his intention to further explore their implications in the course of a consultation exercise about their definition and regulation over the coming year. Like the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I want to put on record my gratitude for the way that he has facilitated these discussions.

The amendments that I rise to support today seek to protect patient information, including what is properly “special category data” in the Data Protection Act 2018, which is crucial in the development of new pharmaceutical products and medical devices.

Of course, it goes without saying that efforts to facilitate the flow of data in the context of the ongoing health emergency are vitally important. These are extraordinary circumstances in which we find ourselves. Today, however, we must take steps with an eye to the long term; steps that will introduce legal provisions to prevent a situation that might give rise to undue concern or restrict scrutiny of matters pertaining to patient safety in the future, both at home and overseas.

I am certain that the Minister is well aware of public sentiment concerning privacy and data protection, which are, of course, not limited to the healthcare domain. Maintaining the trustworthiness of organisations that function as stewards of the nation’s healthcare data is paramount, and a carefully considered approach to patient safety is needed to preserve that trustworthiness, as the Government move to improve upon and forge new international arrangements.

The Minister’s amendments make it mandatory for consent to be provided where patient information is being shared with territories outside the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has tabled clarifying amendments to ensure that the purpose for which patient information is being shared is limited to patient safety and its scrutiny. For these reasons, I support Amendments 18, 36 and 57, to which I have added my name.

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who has made some very cogent points, both in that speech and when we discussed these clauses in Grand Committee.

I want to make two points. The first is about the structure of Amendment 18. I am not entirely sure that I understand why pharmacovigilance has been singled out in the amendment as a reason why disclosure should be made, as distinct from, for example, public health co-operation or the pursuit of research. Indeed, the Minister referred to the sharing of information in relation to international clinical trials as a very good example. If one were to legislate in this form, it would be inevitable that the reference to pharmacovigilance would be regarded as having additional weight, and the absence of reference to other purposes for which information would be shared would be regarded as less important. I am not sure that that would be at all helpful to have in statute.

My other point is in relation to Clause 7(5). Government Amendment 22 refers to and introduces a provision that assists in understanding the relationship between this legislation and other enactments concerning the disclosure of information. Clause 7(5) states:

“Nothing in this section authorises a disclosure of information which … contravenes the data protection legislation (but in determining whether a disclosure would do so, take into account the powers conferred by this section)”.


Noble Lords may recall the Trade Bill and, in particular, the debate we had on the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act just before Christmas and new year. We passed legislation the purpose of which was, among other things, to ensure that we clarified the relationship between that enactment and others that authorise disclosures of information or, in some circumstances, prohibit such disclosures. The particular basis for the structure of that Bill was to clarify a situation where there is a statutory gateway and other enactments that put constraints on the disclosure of information.

In subsection (5) it is clear that if someone is considering a disclosure that might contravene the data protection legislation, that legislation must be considered alongside the powers in this legislation. That enables them to satisfy the test in the Christian Institute and others v The Lord Advocate 2016 Supreme Court decision, as referred to in my noble friend Lord Grimstone’s letter to us about the Trade Bill. In the Trade Bill, though, as is the case in this Bill, we have reference both to the data protection legislation and to the Investigatory Powers Act. In the Trade Bill, amendments were introduced on Report to ensure that the saving reference—that is, when determining whether a disclosure would contravene the legislation, it takes into account the powers in this section—was applied to both the data protection legislation and the Investigatory Powers Act. However, in this legislation—Clause 7(5)(b) —the saving reference is applied to the data protection legislation but not to the Investigatory Powers Act.

My question, which I am sorry I have not had an opportunity to give the Minister notice of, as I have started working through these issues only very recently, is this. Having dealt with this matter on the Trade Bill, I would have thought that both these subsections should have the saving reference that allows the question of the contravention of those Acts to be considered, including reference to the powers in this Bill. I wonder if he would agree.

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

My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend, who speaks with such great authority both as a former Secretary of State for Health and as someone who has followed the Trade Bill and the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act so closely.

At the risk of dancing on the head of a pin, the amendments in this group are quite close, and the Minister set out every reason why we should support his Amendment 17. He said that information would be shared only in the circumstances where there is perceived to be a public need. The amendments and explanatory statement of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, refine that by saying that, in the context of giving effect to an international agreement or arrangement concerning the regulation of human medicines, it should be disclosed only provided that it is in the public interest to do so. A number of noble Lords have spoken with great eloquence and passion on these issues, including the noble Lords, Lord Patel, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Freyberg, and my noble friend Lord Lansley. I have to say that I personally would draw the line at disclosing information for a commercial need as opposed to a public one.

I have a particular question about Amendment 19, which clearly states that patient information cannot be disclosed where the patient could be identified and that that information cannot be given without their consent. I remember that I was once asked to participate in a study; I signed the form and was delighted to do so, and never heard any more about it. I would just like to know how Amendment 19 would work in practice. At what point, and by whom, would the patient be contacted if that information was about to be disclosed and their consent sought?

I have reservations about this group. I remember the important debate that we had on the Trade Bill in this regard, and I am delighted to see that those issues are being considered in the context of this Bill as well. I have two concerns that I hope can be allayed. The first is that public need should not be deemed to collude with commercial need where it might not be in the interests of the patient. The second is about informed consent: how will the patient be consulted within the provisions of Amendment 19?

--- Later in debate ---

The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Wheeler seek to create greater certainty by substituting “must” for “may”. Surely that is right, and I certainly support her on that.

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who asked some relevant and useful questions about this while welcoming the new clause and the advisory committee on medical devices as a statutory body. I join him in that and think it is a very welcome move on the Government’s part. The analogy with the Commission on Human Medicines is helpful. As regards translating the Devices Expert Advisory Committee into a statutory role, in effect, in the process, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested, there is considerable scope to think about how the Government’s new and expanded roles in the regulation of medical devices can be supported by the advisory committee.

I have a number of points. The first reflects the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which is that the MHRA has an enviable reputation as a regulatory authority for the approval of medical devices. If I recall correctly, among the European regulatory bodies something like 40% of the most important or significant medical devices were authorised by the MHRA. Other regulatory authorities in other countries will seek to supplant that. However, our reputation should enable us to establish an international position, and I hope that the advisory committee will not be confined to expertise from within the United Kingdom. There is a lot to be said for positioning the MHRA as a body providing internationally recognised authorisations for medical devices, and its scientific evaluation in that respect should be something that others look to. I therefore hope that that will assist if we have some international participation in the advisory committee structure.

Secondly, I recall, not least in the context of the vexed experience of the PIP breast implant issues back in 2010-11, that the role of notified bodies is very important. Hitherto they have, in essence, been regulated by the European Commission, not by the UK Government, but they fall to be UK-regulated in future. There are not many of them, but there is considerable benefit in there being an advisory committee sub-committee which is focused on the work of the notified bodies. That was the weak link that probably led to the PIP breast implant problems. The regulation is all very well but we have to have bodies that we are confident are able to deliver on these things. The few notified bodies we have in this country are highly respected but we want to make sure that that is maintained even as further notified bodies are authorised.

Thirdly, I recognise that the Devices Expert Advisory Committee has leading clinicians from Scotland and Wales in its membership. However, this must be a UK advisory function, as the MHRA is. I wonder whether it would be appropriate for there to be in addition a Northern Ireland representative on the committee and for there to be perhaps some specific mechanisms to ensure that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are represented in the regulations that establish the advisory committee.

I have one further point, which is that I hope that the various categories of medical devices are very carefully examined and the relevant expertise is available in relation to those. So, for example, on digital devices it is important that we have not only the clinical expertise to deal with the safety of medical devices we have at the moment but the technical expertise in the advisory committee to understand how digital devices will work in the future. That must also be the case in the special interests section related to in vitro diagnostic devices. I hope that that also will have its own special advisory committee function.

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

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I support Amendments 51 to 53 because it is important that the new clause will read “must” instead of “may”, so that the advice on medical devices will be clear and should be followed. “May” means it can be optional and makes the regulations weaker, and people might miss important aspects of care. There is no doubt that clear, correct information is the way to better patient safety. In many ways, communication within the National Health Service should be improved.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff for alerting me to the fact that government Amendment 45 pre-empted our Amendment 46. They were grouped on different days, but I am pleased that others were thinking on the same wavelength.

I am very happy to support Amendment 66 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath. The availability of medicines and medical devices is top of my priority list. In fact, antibiotics have saved my life on several occasions. It is important that NICE adheres to health equality: everyone who needs medicines or medical devices should be treated equally and there should be no delay. Unfortunately, with this devious coronavirus, this has not happened, but we hope for better days.

Having experienced a member of my family dying, I know that sometimes it seems worth trying anything that might help and that is in the research process. There are many really rare diseases which need orphan drugs; they can be a lifeline to the individual. I hope that NICE will consider them without delay and realise their importance and value to these small patient groups. It is so frustrating when patients in Scotland and other European countries can get medicines and medical devices, when those in England cannot; patients here have to wait—unless the public come to their rescue by crowd funding.

Many users of devices also need instruction on their use, and staff and patients need training. Personal medicine is so important and patient safety is absolutely paramount.

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, for his amendment and for the way he introduced it. It very helpfully allows us, at this very important moment, to take stock of how we secure the availability of medicines—although the legislation does not relate to NICE, and I am sure it will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I do not think it is appropriate for us to legislate to tell NICE how to do its work, given its independent statutory constitution. None the less, the Bill is about the availability of medicines, and it is really important for us to identify how the NICE processes can assist in ensuring that we get medicines to those who need them.

I shall say a few words about the NICE processes. First, let me address the objective, from my point of view. When I was Secretary of State, I advocated a process called “value-based pricing”, which was to try to understand that not only were there quantitative factors measured in quality-adjusted life years—QALYs —which, if one were able to secure them, gave one a quantitative basis for understanding the value of a new medicine, but that in addition there were other qualitative aspects, which I described as the societal benefits and the innovation benefits. I still think that this is the right approach.

In the international context, many countries are trying to escape the potential downward spiral of reference pricing, where everybody is trying to pay less than the average. The net result, if we carry on down that path and if the American Administration pursue that path, will be that we end up with inadequate support for the industry for the development of new and innovative medicines.

What we need to do is to value innovation and support the industry for the value it delivers. However, we do not measure it precisely in those terms. When we look at our current structure in this country, we need to understand that there is an opportunity created by what is known as VPAS—the voluntary pricing and access scheme. If it is genuinely the case, and we have argued that it should be, that the industry has accepted a constraint on the overall growth of the medicines budget in the NHS, and if it is clear that, if that growth is exceeded, there will be a rebate and that rebate does indeed return to benefit patients, through the NHS or the innovative medicines fund, so promoting access to new medicines, then we will arrive at the point where both NICE and NHS England should be working together to try to secure the best value from that drugs budget. I think they should be working together to ensure that, where there is a mandate for a new medicine, it is one which is supported by, not imposed upon, NHS England. That is increasingly where we should be aiming to arrive: at a combined thought.

What goes into value-based pricing matters enormously as well. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to some of the important aspects. First, it is about societal values. For example, if we can deliver a health gain among the parts of our population where health outcomes are poorest, then we should ascribe additional value to that health gain. A modifier for health inequalities is consistent, for example, with the statutory responsibilities of the NHS to seek to address and reduce health inequalities.

Unmet medical need makes a difference. Incremental effectiveness of medicines is important, but to have a medicine available for those who thought that there was no opportunity for treatment available to them from the NHS can make an enormous difference, and I think we should ascribe additional value to that. Medicines which deliver innovative benefits—for example, which have a whole new mode of action—can lead to subsequent treatments, and we should have a method of qualitatively understanding where those innovations, even if they may not have dramatic incremental benefits, none the less give us long-term potential. We should reflect that in the price that we are prepared to pay.

Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, we should not apply a discount rate to quality-adjusted life years that is directly comparable with the discount rates that are applied to revenues over time. I think people's time preference for quality-adjusted life years is not so dramatically higher for gain now as opposed to gain in the future; there is a much greater degree of equivalence between health gain now and health gain that people will derive in future. That would certainly assist in promoting medicines that slow the progression of disease and help us to manage longer-term morbidity in our older population, which would be immensely helpful.

There is a whole range of such matters and there are many more one could talk about, but it is really important to distinguish between NICE’s job in undertaking a health technology assessment, which I think should be moved from the purely quantitative to the qualitative. It should include, for example, relying not only on randomised control trial data but understanding observational data and the data we receive from the use of the innovative medicines fund to see how well medicines work and what benefits and outcomes they can deliver—sometimes in relatively small populations for rare diseases—understanding that in practice and incorporating it in its assessment.

We need to support NICE in delivering what is regarded internationally, I hope, as a gold standard of health technology assessment. We need to understand that that is separate and distinct from the business of what price the NHS should pay and on what basis the industry and we, as payers for new medicines, should agree, understanding that our objective must always be to ensure that safe, effective and high-quality medicines are available to the NHS and patients.

[Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]]

My Lords, these amendments relate to NHS access to medical devices, and Amendment 46 from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, would ensure early access for NHS patients to medical devices and allow monitoring of safety and efficacy in real-time use. This amendment is pre-empted rather by the Government’s amendment, which removes the concept of attractiveness.

Amendment 66 from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, would require NICE to ensure that its recommendations support the NHS in the ways outlined in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause. This includes ensuring access to new medicines and medical devices for patients with rare diseases. Those of us who have been involved in rare diseases will be all too well aware of the problems of access to appropriate treatments for so few patients.

The interesting thing about this debate is that two of the House’s big health thinkers have been speaking, and both the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, have given us a really good big-picture look which takes us slightly above legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke of social and innovation benefits and the need to value innovation, but with innovation does not always come success: we may have to try again. He spoke about the innovative medicines fund and the necessity for NICE and NHS England to work together. When it is put like that, it sounds very straightforward: why is that not normally happening? He talked about the importance of value-based pricing and getting the best value from the drugs budget—which, after all, is finite. He also talked about the health technology assessment, which is of course qualitative, not quantitative. I valued the contribution of this debate on the fourth group of amendments, and I will read it again with great interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and prior to her the movers of Amendment 67. I welcome the fact that we have this opportunity to say something about redress. Amendment 68 is to follow in the next group, and I think it important to distinguish between the need to establish a scheme of redress where the NHS or government have been responsible for something which subsequently turns out to have damaged or harmed people, and the need to establish a scheme to provide proper support to those who have been harmed. That has been done on an ex gratia basis but, if the Government sought to do so, I think it would be possible to commence the NHS Redress Act 2006 and to establish such redress schemes under a statutory footing. It is not necessary to pass legislation to make that happen.

Those are different and distinct from the process of recognising that those harmed as a result of clinical negligence or failures in treatment processes should be able to secure a remedy and redress. I say remedy advisedly because often, in my experience of talking to people who have been harmed as a result of clinical negligence—these are often cases involving harm to babies during birth—it is as important to understand what happened, to accept where responsibility lies and to understand that others will not suffer in the same way, as it is to secure redress, compensation and support, which is often support for the child throughout their life. We need to understand that that is what we are talking about, not just the question of compensation.

I am slightly surprised by Amendment 67. I wonder what we think NHS Resolution is, if not an agency within the NHS with responsibility for securing redress for those who have been harmed as a result of clinical negligence. We need to recognise the need for, and I hope the Minister will tell us that the Government have not abandoned thought of, further reform. Certainly, when we were in opposition, we argued during the passage of the NHS Redress Bill that there should be a fact-finding phase. We argued that, rather than having an adversarial process with expert witnesses and all the associated costs, we should have a phase during which a claim is brought and the facts are established on an independent basis. That could lead to arbitration procedures and a settlement, rather than court-based proceedings, and we might escape some of the burden of cost. We should remember that nearly half the total cost of compensation in the clinical negligence process through NHS Resolution is actually legal fees. If we can escape some of that through an independent fact-finding phase, an arbitration process and financial settlements which recognise the support that the NHS and taxpayers give to those who have been harmed and have enduring problems and disabilities as a result, we might escape some of the burden of cost.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the potential contingent liability—not on an annual basis, but in the future—has risen to £83 billion. It is an enormous sum. The amounts paid by way of premiums to NHS Resolution are a significant aspect of the cost of NHS providers. There continues to be a good argument that the Government should consider this area still in need of reform.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

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

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who asked some good questions. Indeed, many noble Lords have asked good questions about the functioning of a patient safety commissioner. All are agreed that we have come very far, very quickly, and the Minister and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege are to be congratulated on having brought this proposal from her excellent report to primary legislation so rapidly. Knowing how difficult it is, I commend the Minister and his team for securing collective agreement to such a significant policy innovation so rapidly, to the point that we can put it into the Bill on Report.

I want to make two points. First, as I know from the past, independence can be instrumental to the functioning of an organisation, but the NHS can, if one is not careful, see independence as something outside the system. It is somewhat discounted because of that. We must always think of the patient safety commissioner in two important respects. First, it should be not only independent but influential. A number of noble Lords have spoken about how that might best be achieved. That influence is terrifically important.

Secondly, patient safety is central across the NHS and is regarded as such. As the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, evidenced, we have come a long way with safety in the NHS—for example, in the reduction in healthcare-acquired infections. I was responsible for introducing never events and a range of other factors. Mainstreaming safety to become a central concern of commissioners and providers across the NHS has been a recurring feature of the work of this Government and their predecessors, and of my successors, Jeremy Hunt in particular.

I stress that that work on safety inside the NHS is clinically led and data-driven. The patient safety commissioner has a remit focused on hearing from, understanding and working with patients. That distinction is tremendously important and must be made clear to all those working across the health and care systems, from the outset. There is something new and distinctive about the patient safety commissioner, and it is not simply another accretion to the many organisations that those who work in the health system feel impede their lives. On the contrary, this is a representative of patients who, by virtue of that, attracts special attention from their point of view and brings a distinctive and unique voice into the NHS systems. I am pleased to have had this opportunity to say those few things and to support the government amendment in the name of the Minister.

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

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. It is very good news that there is to be a patient safety commissioner. I congratulate everyone who has worked so hard to create this amendment, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. It is so good that the Government have listened. Patient safety is vital, especially now when the NHS is under so much stress and demand. Over the years, some tragic incidents could have been avoided if patients had been listened to and there had not been cover-ups.

The noble Baroness feels that the words

“so far as reasonably practicable”

should be removed. She may feel that they would weaken the amendment; is this the case? This is important, because patients need clear information about how they are to communicate with the patient commissioner, so that they trust the system.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I support these amendments. It seems totally sensible to consolidate legislation so that it is not fragmented and some medicines do not get missed. Medicines and medical devices are vital to some people. We depend on many of our medicines and devices coming from abroad, so bringing legislation together for human and animal medicines will help prevent mistakes. We are an island and crossing the borders has already caused problems with filling in the forms. With much-needed medicines there should not be a risk of not receiving them.

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That surely must be right.

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who again has raised an important issue. The amendment in this group which more broadly encompass all those elements that go to make the United Kingdom a favourable location for research and the manufacture and supply of medicines gives us an opportunity to make sure that we have got that right.

I support the government amendments in this group and add my thanks to those expressed to the Minister and the Bill team for the immensely constructive way in which they responded to the amendments that we brought forward in Committee and in many related discussions. At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and I were worried that the Bill was skeletal. We wanted to put a bit of flesh on its bones and make it more of a framework Bill—I think that is a bit of a theme. In the spirit of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, it might be helpful if I briefly explained what we were trying to achieve, and how these government amendments appear to have responded well to that.

First, even following the initial changes, the structure of the powers was not objective; they were that the relevant Minister was satisfied that the regulations met certain requirements. What we were looking for from the outset was an objective test. My noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy asked what that objective test was and why we chose to continue with the structure of safeguarding public health? The short answer is that it is because that is the objective in the European Union regulation; it is not an objective in that context which relates to the internal market provisions. To have moved away from the objective of safeguarding public health would run the risk of it being interpreted as somehow different from the past objective on the basis of which decisions had been made and regulations pursued. That seemed entirely appropriate as an encompassing and overarching objective for all these related requirements. I am happy that the Government’s amendment has taken that forward as an objective measure against which the regulations, the use of these powers, can be tested.

Secondly, we wanted to make sure that safety was built into the structure of regulation-making powers. We had an extremely helpful debate about that, and I think that it was clear that, while we wanted to make safety central to what was being achieved, it would not be appropriate to make it an overriding objective. That would have led to the regulator being required effectively to eliminate risk. That brings me to the point made by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. We then came to the further question of how, if safety is the issue, we then manage the test of whether benefits outweigh risks, sufficiently so for regulations to be proceeded with. The answer is that the objective is not to eliminate risk; it is to eliminate harm. We must make a distinction between those two things.

Making safety the overriding objective would have meant us having to eliminate risk. At the moment, we balance benefits and risks, not benefits and harms. When my noble friend Lady Cumberlege asked her question, I think she was suggesting that we were having to balance benefits and harms, whereas on pretty much every occasion the regulator is asked to undertake an authorisation they have to balance benefits and risks, because we can never eliminate risk. The question is: can we quantify it? That is what the trials and the data are meant to enable us to do—to quantify the benefits and risks. In making an authorisation, can we make sure that we have avoided harm but at the same time realised those benefits?

These amendments get us to that balance. They enable us to give an objective test against which the powers can be measured; they enable us to put safety clearly at the heart of the thinking about how the powers are to be used, and they enable the regulator to undertake that appropriate measurement of benefits and risks. I support the amendments and appreciate the way in which we have arrived at this place by constructive discussion.

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

My Lords, I welcome Amendment 5 and others in this group. I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in complimenting both the Minister and the Bill team on their expert handling of this part of the Bill.

I find the sentiment behind Amendment 12 attractive and endorse entirely the words of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and others who have supported her in wanting to avoid “harm”. The idea of a threshold, as solicited in Amendment 12, seems helpful. I have a question for my noble friend the Minister to which I would be grateful for a response. We are told in the explanatory statement that the amendment would require the Secretary of State

“to publish the criteria that will be used by the appropriate authority”—

obviously not yet set up—

“to determine whether the benefits of regulations that may impact on the safety of human medicines outweigh the risk”

and

“to allow for greater transparency and scrutiny.”

My noble friend said that the Government intended to publish the initial assessments. It would be helpful to know when that would be.

There currently seems to be a gap in the law; for example, as regards the vaccinations—I know that this was debated earlier today. The Government have unilaterally extended the time between the first dose and the second dose of Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines from three weeks—21 days—to up to 12 weeks. No other European country that I am aware of has done this. It is true that Denmark is looking to extend it to a maximum of between four and six weeks, which is nearer the initial three-week period. I presume that, if what is proposed by Amendment 12 were law, the Government would be obliged to publish the arguments in the interests of transparency, openness and scrutiny as to how they had reached that decision. If that were the case, I would be minded to support Amendment 12.

Otherwise, I welcome Amendments 4 and 5 and others in the group, which look to establish the overarching objective as being public health. I like the formulation of words that the Government have hit on and hope that they will stick with it. I shall be interested to hear how my noble friend responds, but, as I see it, there is some merit in Amendment 12.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation and Linked Households) (England) Regulations 2020

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, we are repeatedly told that we are in a race against time. It is in fact a race against the virus; presently, the virus, tragically, is winning. This must change. These restrictions may be regrettable but they are necessary and must be persisted with. Will the Government make it clear that a relaxation of restrictions can happen only when the alert level is brought down to three, and not fully relaxed until it is down to two? Even if the most at-risk population is immunised, this will not be 100% effective, and we should maintain social distancing while we drive cases down to the point where test, track and trace can suppress outbreaks.

I want to ask about two issues. First, on the NHS Covid-19 app, we have 20 million-plus downloads and 750,000 QR codes, but how many positive tests are being registered on the app? It should be some 25,000 a day, and we should expect more than 100,000 alerts to be sent out each day. Without them, contact tracing and isolation will miss most of the contacts in public places. Can our app, like those of some other countries, have the option to provide a mobile phone contact number to allow track and trace to follow up those testing positive?

Secondly, we must now maximise the capacity for vaccination, using the military medical support units and community pharmacy. We should not have arrived at the point yesterday where the pharmacy sector was saying that it did not know whether it would be used. Thousands of trained vaccinators are an essential resource. Can my noble friend confirm that they will be integral to our vaccination programme?

Ockenden Review

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I respectfully disagree with the noble Baroness’s insight—the Ockenden review does not point the finger at staffing levels in relation to the problems; it points the finger at a number of items, particularly the cultural problems that emerge when differences of opinion between clinicians and midwives arise and where a culture of respect breaks down. Those cultural differences can be improved by what we would politely call education; it is essential that we invest in the right kind of education in order to bring midwives, obstetricians and gynaecologists closer together and to break down the hierarchical differences and the ideological differences about the best way to have a baby.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, as a Secretary of State responsible for the health service for some of this period—two years out of two decades—I share in the responsibility for what happened here and for the fact that it was not known about and that action was not taken sooner. I am sure that others who have been Ministers in the department over these two decades will feel likewise.

What is shocking is not only the individual trauma that parents have suffered but the scale of what the Ockenden review discloses—we are grateful to Donna Ockenden and her colleagues for persisting in trying to understand and disclose the scale of what has happened. I ask my noble friend about our responsibility, which was, of course, that there should be external oversight and action taken when these things go wrong. From my point of view, one of my objectives was that there should be more clinically led commissioning so that local clinicians would understand what was happening and have the power to step in.

The Ockenden report shows that, in May 2013, the clinical commissioning groups set up a review that, in October 2013, reported:

“The overall findings of the review demonstrate that this is a safe and a good quality service”.


I encourage Donna Ockenden and the department to look very carefully at how they could ensure that local clinicians responsible for commissioning take that responsibility seriously and act upon it.

[Lord Bethell (Con) [V]]

On behalf of the Chamber, I thank my noble friend for his touching testimony. He is entirely right; there are two CCGs in the local area: the Telford and Wrekin CCG and the Shropshire CCG. They did exactly what they should have done in 2013, launching an investigation into the levels of service at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust. It is not clear why the findings of that report turned out as they did; nor is it clear why other interventions, or potential interventions, by the CQC and other regulators did not get to the bottom of the problem. Those questions will be addressed in the second of Donna Ockenden’s reports, in 2021; there has not been time for them all to be addressed in the interim report, but there is much more to go into, and this is undoubtedly one of the important points she will need to address.

Covid-19 Update

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

The noble Baroness is entirely right. I share her sentiments. We are not inclined to give in to the pressure. There is a temptation for greater granularity, but we have learned the lesson on that one.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, the Faculty of Public Health and the directors of public health have expressed reservations about what they described as the distraction of the mass community testing programme in relation to the requirement to support the vaccination programme. Can my noble friend give them and me some reassurance that the vaccination programme will be an overarching priority for resources and that the testing of symptomatic cases and of essential workers, to which he referred, is a priority for the testing programme? Can he also say whether there is a realistic level of resources to support the community testing programme to which he has twice referred positively?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

I welcome my noble friend’s challenge. I reassure him that the testing and vaccination programmes will absolutely run alongside each other and that this has already been happening. They are collaborating very closely. The resources being provided for both are generous enough to ensure full delivery of the vaccine. The rollout of the community testing programme is a sign of the success of test and trace, but it will in no way have a negative impact on the deployment of the vaccine programme, which remains a number one priority for the Government.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

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

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

The next speaker on the list, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am in the position that my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy was in earlier, as much of what needs to be said has been said, but I want to add a few remarks on the two amendments.

I echo what my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy said. In the light of the First Do No Harm report, we have to be careful to address ourselves to the issues before us and put in place schemes of redress on the three causes. I am not an expert on those, but when I was Secretary of State for Health I was only too aware, when dealing with the Thalidomide Trust or infected blood payments, for example, that when we reviewed and made payments that were more generous, we were working in what was, in effect, an administrative structure that did not necessarily have coherence or consistency. We were making what we thought were the right decisions at the time, but those who had been harmed all suffered, from their point of view, from two problems. The first was the relative lack of generosity of the payments, which were made to reflect specific needs but were not representative of the overall harm that had been done. Secondly, there was no admission of liability, which is always an issue. Liability matters. Those who are harmed want to see liability determined and accepted.

I am sympathetic to the view that not only should redress schemes be considered for the three causes in the report, but the Government should take the opportunity to think about what a redress scheme might look like more generally. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege and her colleagues looked carefully at a number or international examples. They might well have thought, with some justification, that the French scheme—I will not attempt its title in French, but it is a national office for indemnity in relation to medical accidents—is an interesting basis on which to examine the issue. We might include not only the redress schemes from previous years but the present schemes that need to be established. This is something that Ministers might want to say in relation to the continuing review into infected blood accidents.

Again, like my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, I do not want to confuse what are related but distinct issues. The schemes relate to what are, in effect, systemic failures. Recommendation 3 of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s report appropriately says that the schemes are to provide redress in relation to avoidable harm resulting from systemic failures. There is a question, which is not entirely resolved in the report, about which test should be applied. The Government should look carefully at where liability genuinely lies. Where there is harm as a result of systemic failings, the Government have a responsibility. That is fairly straight- forward. However, that is not the same as assuming that such a scheme should encompass all the many other cases that give rise to most of the clinical negligence claims against the NHS, which result not from systemic failings but from the failings of medical practice in particular circumstances. Those are different and separate. This debate is not the right place to go on about that at length.

I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, talk about the NHS Redress Act 2006. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, will recall that in 2009 she was not able to bring that Act into force. I was the shadow Secretary of State during the passage of that Act and Secretary of State after 2010. One reason for not bringing it into force, to which my noble friend referred, was the Government’s intention to undertake tort law reform in general and this was a tort-based liability scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I have received no request to speak after the Minister, so I call Lord Sharkey—

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I sent an email.

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

With apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who does wish to speak after the Minister, I now ask him to do so.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I thank the Deputy Chairman. I sent the email only about 30 seconds ago so I suppose, strictly speaking, that apologies on his part are not required. I should have anticipated the need to ask a question, but I am afraid I was prompted by listening to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the Minister’s reply. I want to ask one question: how can what will become Section 1 be brought into force without Section 2? I do not understand. If a power is to be used under Section 1, it must surely make provision about some of the long list of relevant areas in what will be Section 2. In the absence of Section 2 being in force, I cannot see how Section 1 works.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I will seek to provide an answer to my noble friend. Should it not be quite the right answer I will endeavour to write to him. It is my understanding that no substantive provision of an Act should be brought into operation earlier than two months after Royal Assent. However, some sections of the Act can be brought into force on Royal Assent, typically those setting out how the Act is to be cited and what the procedure is for making regulations or commencing them. It is under those arrangements that the sequencing which he describes can be undertaken.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

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

In conclusion, I also support Amendment 101 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Bennett. These amendments will give patients a voice and ensure that they consent to the information used about their care.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity to follow my noble friend Lord Ribeiro and to speak to my Amendment 104. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for bringing forward her amendments as well. They highlight some useful points and—particularly Amendment 101—focus on the necessity for patients to be provided with information and for patient experience to have its place in the information systems to be created under Clause 16. My noble friend Lord Ribeiro very helpfully illustrated that the benefit of the joint registry and similar information systems is not simply to promote safety but also to improve outcomes. We can certainly look forward to seeing both happening in the future.

My Amendment 104, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf have added their names, requires that the regulations made under Clause 16 include specific reference to the Caldicott principles. Noble Lords will recall the establishment of those principles back in 1997. They say that an organisation should:

“Justify the purpose for using confidential information”


and that the NHS should not

“use confidential data unless absolutely necessary”.

The NHS should:

“Use the minimum necessary personal confidential data”,


while

“Access to personal confidential data should be on a strict need-to-know basis … Everyone with access to personal confidential data should be aware of their responsibilities”


and, when using data, NHS personnel should “comply with the law”. In 2003, a seventh principle was added:

“The duty to share information can be as important as the duty to protect patient confidentiality.”


In a sense, a balancing principle was added as number seven. The amendment refers to those two reports, which have given rise to those principles. I am interested generally in the proposition of how certain we are that the Caldicott principles are being applied in every case. I think in these regulations it would be to the benefit if they were restated, given the importance of this as an information system.

I will ask three questions of my noble friend. First, can he assure us that the regulations themselves will make specific reference to the Caldicott principles? This would mean that we did not need to put it in the Bill. Secondly, in establishing these information systems, can we be assured that Caldicott Guardians will be appointed specifically in relation to each of the information systems that are to be established? Thirdly, can my noble friend tell us any more about the National Data Guardian’s consultation, which opened in June and closed in September, on an eighth principle:

“Inform the expectations of patients and service users about how their confidential information is to be used”?


This ties very directly into Amendment 101 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff.

If it is endorsed by the National Data Guardian, that principle would give rise to an additional principle being reflected in the regulations. I freely confess that this is a good reason not to put my amendment in the Bill, because the nature of the Caldicott principles might well change in the immediate future, so it is not very helpful to entrench it in its current form. If we get the assurance that we are looking for from my noble friend, I hope the regulations, when they are made, will be able fully to reflect the Caldicott principles.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]]

This string of amendments all talk about recording information, and I broadly agree with all of them. I particularly mention Amendment 104, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, because of the mention of the Caldicott principles. Many people, particularly noble Lords in the Liberal Democrat party, jealously guard our right to privacy—hence the promissory tone of Amendment 100 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jolly.

The purpose of the proposed new clause in Amendment 107, to which I have put my name, is slightly different from that of the other clauses because it seeks to ensure that a proper systematic analysis is made of the effectiveness of mesh implants through registers. The Cumberlege review notes that registries are

“few and far between and all too often prompted by catastrophe”

in relation to transvaginal mesh and PIPs. This is obviously a good phrase because the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has already picked it out of the report.

This clause proposes a register. It requires the Secretary of State to report on progress towards creating databases relating to other devices. I appreciate that there are many databases out there—far more than I anticipated when first became involved in this Bill. The idea of the registries is to draw all this information together. As the Cumberlege report says,

“a ‘registry’ … would act as a repository for more complex patient related information datasets enabling research and investigation into patient outcomes.”

This would be more holistic and far more useful than just a database, enabling any adverse outcomes to be spotted early and not allowed to fester, literally, for years before defaults are spotted.

Patient groups must be consulted on devising the register. Time and time again, victims reported that they had not been listened to, despite the fact that the mesh felt “like razor blades” inside them. Never again must a patient feel patronised, unheard or left to suffer in silence. Of course, those healthcare professionals at the coal face, as it were, of the issues must have their say. We know that some registries exist today, but this database would bring everything together, instead of the piecemeal system we have at the moment.

I will go back to the lady whose poignant testimony I quoted at Second Reading, whom I called Jane. Jane had an estimated five pieces of mesh inside her, although the health professionals treating her maintained that there were only two. How can this be? I leave noble Lords to speculate but, in my view, this is a sharp indictment of the state of the service our health service gives to patients in this area. Unless we have a proper register of everything that is inside a patient, when it was inserted and what its performance record is, how are we going to enable them to be given the appropriate treatment when problems arise? The Royal College of Surgeons endorses this view—it wants all medical device implants overseen by registries.

Finally, I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for the briefing this morning. I was very heartened to learn of the hard work going on in this area and the aspiration that a register for vaginal mesh implants could be up and running in only a year. I wish the Bill well.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

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

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

My Lords, I am most grateful for the kindness of all your Lordships. Lacking having all those wonderful papers in front of me really showed. It is the first time that I have missed walking into the Chamber with a large stack of papers.

Amendment 91A builds on the concept that we had in the previous debates of an innovative medicines fund, which had been carefully thought through, including how it was to be financed. It struck me then that we have fantastic potential in medical engineering in this country to develop new and innovative medical devices. I should declare an interest because my son is involved in developing devices for use in cardiology, for oblation procedures and so on.

The real issue, as the Minister pointed out in the previous debate, is about developing a piece of equipment which is a custom-made device, for one reason or another. When that happens it can turn out to be, serendipitously, something that solves a problem for clinicians in undertaking a procedure of some sort. However, when that happens, if it is a small clinical team in a district general hospital, it will not be linked into a commercial enterprise and funding its ongoing development is extremely difficult.

In previous debates, I referred to the investment that went on in Ireland—in Galway—to create an innovation hub and ensure that there is investment in innovation. This amendment would allow the Government to explore having a medical devices fund similar to an innovative medicines fund, and would allow that fund to be used to develop a device and test and trial it within the NHS, with it being available to NHS patients and clinicians much more rapidly than the current procedures require. It does not in any way suggest that the usual ethical approval processes and all the checks that go with it should be curtailed; it would simply be a way of making sure that, where a custom-made device that solves a major problem could be rolled out widely, it can be used for the benefit of UK plc, if you like to call it that. It would make sure that we have that investment, and that the clinicians do not have to give it away for the whole thing to be developed commercially elsewhere and then sold back to the NHS at huge cost. I again express my gratitude to the Committee and I beg to move.

[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.

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

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am likewise very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his very clear explanation of the purpose of these regulations. I wish to speak only to the first set, relating to blood safety and quality.

As the Minister quite rightly explained, the purpose of the regulations is to enable the protocol to be applied and therefore for the regulations in Northern Ireland to continue to be those prescribed by EU law, rather than those under UK law. So the issues, as noble Lords have already said, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, are very much around what will happen if there is some degree of divergence in the future.

My point is that I do not regard this as an unlikely prospect: I fear that it is a quite likely—and perhaps even an imminent—prospect. I say this because it is just over a year since the European Commission published its working document, Evaluation of the Union Legislation on Blood, Tissues and Cells. My expectation is that, probably this month, an inception impact assessment will be published by the European Commission, and its working plan says that it expects to publish a legislative proposal in the third quarter of next year—so this is not a speculative prospect.

It may not occur because the United Kingdom chooses to have different regulations. Notwithstanding my noble friend’s optimistic scenario, it is not simply a question of whether the United Kingdom chooses to have higher standards of regulation. Divergence does not necessarily mean that one jurisdiction has high standards and one has low standards; they have different standards.

Let me give some examples of where this might arise. The first relates to advanced therapy medicinal products; here, I am talking about gene therapies and somatic cell therapies. It is clear from the European Commission’s work on what it terms “strategic value chains” that one of the nine areas it has identified is personalised medicines. We know from discussions in the European Parliament in relation to these matters, and from the way in which the Commission has responded to them, that it does not simply regard this as strategic but also regards Europe’s own legislation on the governance of gene therapies as potentially differing from where it is now—and it may well be different from the way in which we choose to govern gene therapies in this country. So we may diverge in that respect.

Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to plasma and plasma products. The European Union is dealing with substantial excess, and rising, demand for plasma and plasma products. There is a serious deficiency in supply in the European Union, much of which is presently met from the United States. It may well be that the European Union adopts measures the purpose of which is to increase supply within it. That may have implications for the supply of plasma products heading out of the EU to non-EU member states. Of course, for these purposes, the United Kingdom will become a non-EU member state, so we may have divergence in that respect.

This is not confined to the European Union. On 30 October, the US Food and Drug Administration published a list of 230 sensitive products in this area, five of which relate to plasma and plasma products. There are rising demands for products in this area and international constraints on supply. I will not repeat him but the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked a perfectly reasonable question about the ability of the HTA to be a competent authority for two different jurisdictions, and whether my noble friend the Minister is happy that the HTA can exercise both roles.

Finally, if I may be forgiven for this question, how are we at this moment discussing these regulations in this Committee to give effect to the protocol, while discussing a Bill this afternoon in the Chamber Clauses 43 and 44 of which seem on the face of it to give the Government the power—indeed, give Ministers the responsibility—potentially to disapply the protocol in relation to regulations in this area? This is an absurd proposition. Perhaps my noble friend would be kind enough to explain how we arrived at this place.

Covid-19: Intensive Care Treatment

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

Our learning has come a long way. Practices within ICU units have changed as a result of what we have learned in relation to the way that oxygen is administered, the range of drugs available and the turning of patients. To date, triage has not been necessary because the NHS is so good at load management that patients can be dispersed and deployed through the system, which has not been placed under pressure. We expect to be in good shape for the second wave. The principle remains as the national medical director, Stephen Powis, stated in his letter of 7 April:

“The key principle is that each person is an individual whose needs and preferences must be taken account of individually.”


That remains our principle.

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, on precisely the point that my noble friend the Minister has just made, I know he will be aware of the revised version of ReSPECT—the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment—which was published in September by the Resuscitation Council UK. It is in wide, but rather variable, use. Will my noble friend encourage NHS England to make its use a best-practice requirement in relation to Covid-19 patients entering high-dependency or intensive care in the months ahead?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, we are extremely grateful to the Resuscitation Council for its work on this important tool. It gives an opportunity for patients to express their preference and for clinical judgment to be used at moments of acute intervention. It is being used in some places but, as the noble Lord rightly points out, its use is variable. I would be glad to take this back to the department to see what can be done to encourage its use more thoroughly.