Antimicrobial Resistance

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Thornton

Thursday 2nd May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate and revealed again the depth and breadth of the knowledge and passion your Lordships’ House has on this issue. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for initiating the debate and the Library and many other organisations for their helpful briefings. I feel I should declare that I am a member of a CCG. I say that because it is rare to see a subject that is the victim of as many acronyms as the NHS, but this field certainly challenges that, combining as it does health, farming and the environment, the research and science communities, pharma businesses and international organisations. I was very grateful for the list of acronyms at the front of the Government’s five-year paper.

As noble Lords have said, we know that AMR currently results in 700,000 deaths globally every year, that by 2050 that could be 10 million, and that it threatens to turn back the clock on a century of medicine, rendering modern surgery, organ transplantation and chemotherapy too dangerous to use. Preventive treatment is needed, as the report says, to curb the spread of bacterial diseases requiring antibiotics. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, vaccines are the most effective preventive health tool in human history. We therefore need to expand the use of existing vaccines to have a better impact.

One of the most serious issues in the fight against AMR, which almost every noble Lord mentioned, is that no new class of antibiotics has been introduced for more than 30 years. Antibiotics are quite unlike any other category of drug, because every dose of antibiotics poses the risk of encouraging bacteria to adapt and develop resistance. That was illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in her description of the fight she has been having, which we have discussed on several occasions over the past year.

The Government’s five-year action plan is indeed an impressive document and a step along the road. I join the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in saying that we may not be moving as quickly as we should. That has been echoed across the Chamber. Of course, it is not the complete solution, and serious questions have been asked in the debate. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, in saying that the plan is disappointing in that it fails to give a clear commitment to incorporate into domestic law the European Union’s recently agreed legislation that bans routine preventive use of antimicrobials. It is a pertinent question at this point. Article 107.1 provides:

“Antimicrobial medicinal products shall not be applied routinely nor used to compensate for poor hygiene, inadequate animal husbandry or lack of care or to compensate for poor farm management”.


That is not being incorporated into UK law, as far as we can tell. I agree with the noble Baroness that the answers given to questions in the Commons were ambiguous, to put it mildly. Perhaps the Minister could take this opportunity to clarify the issue.

When I discussed the five-year plan with my noble friend Lord Winston, who regrets that he cannot join us this afternoon, he said two things to me. The first was that meeting this challenge will be well-nigh impossible given the dearth of lab, technical and science staff in the NHS at this moment. Secondly, he said that investment in research needs to be much greater and the follow-through more effective. My noble friend would have put those points more eloquently and, probably, more forcefully than I have, but neither of those issues is new; they have been articulated in your Lordships’ House over a long period.

Part of the NHS long-term plan talks about the delivery of the five-year plan we are discussing today. Will the staffing review address technical staff, of which there is a terrible shortage? They are essential for the delivery of both the NHS long-term plan and this plan. We know that the issue of research is not just about funding to deliver ground-breaking research. The UK does a great job in training PhD students, but loses a lot of talented people because the post-doctoral period is so unstable. We need continued support for interdisciplinary networks to strengthen research and develop capacity. Does the strategy address that issue as robustly as the emergency that we are facing requires?

Many noble Lords mentioned market failure, which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, dwelled on in his opening remarks. According to Professor Dame Sally Davies, the reason for that is in part that the easy wins have been made and there is now a fundamental failure of the market for new antibiotics. Given the growing threat of AMR and the need to conserve and use current and future antibiotics carefully to preserve their effectiveness for as long as possible, it is clear that pharmaceutical companies are aware that any new antibiotic they bring to market will be prescribed only very sparingly rather than as a first-line treatment during its patent life, thereby reducing its profitability. I found that idea very dispiriting because it seems that we must address market failure. The report of the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, also recognised and addressed this issue.

That is even more discouraging when one realises that, over the past five years, we have seen pharmaceutical companies withdraw further and further from the development of antibiotics. In June last year, the latest company, Novartis, exited the market, bringing the total number of companies involved in antimicrobial drug development to six. The issues of market failure and disinvestment are incredibly important; therefore, the Government’s scheme to delink the price paid for antimicrobials from the volume sold is also crucial.

Even more depressingly, Professor Dame Sally Davies argued that the industry needed to step up and act in a socially responsible way, pointing out that tackling AMR was also in its interest. In her evidence to the Commons Select Committee, whose report I found extremely useful, she said:

“I am disappointed by the number of them”—


pharmaceutical companies—

“who have said quietly over a drink, ‘Well, Sally, we know you’re going to solve this. The Government will have to pay, so we’re waiting until you pay’”.

Where is the social responsibility? What terrible short-sightedness. To go back to the point about losing modern medicine, what is the point of developing the world’s greatest cancer portfolio if there are no antibiotics to rescue the patients? Yet industry expects us in government and the public sector to fund this, or that it will happen through somebody else being corporately responsible.

This market failure might lead to catastrophic consequences, as referred to on pages 74 and 76 of the five-year plan. It rightly states:

“The UK cannot solve such market failures alone”.


I question that because I should not like to think that the idea that we cannot solve this alone because we are 3% of the world market means that we do not try to do things in this country to turn this round. Our NHS has huge purchasing power: it pays billions of pounds to pharma, which makes billions in profit from these sales, for the drugs and treatments we need. We must have some leverage here. I ask the Minister: if a UK university or small pharma company found a new antibiotic, surely our Government would find a way to make sure that it was developed and brought to market. They would not wait for this to happen on the world stage, would they? I really want to hear that we will not have a repeat in the UK of the situation described in the MRC report, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I received that report; the story of Achaogen was a graphic one of market failure in developing a new antibiotic. However, the noble Lord did not ask something that I wish to ask: what will happen to that drug? Achaogen developed a drug that can treat the most serious superbugs; therefore, it is not much needed so the company did not make enough money and went bankrupt. Where has that drug gone? What has happened to it? That is an important question.

[Lord Lansley]

As I understand it, the company is up for sale so, effectively, people would buy the patent and the drug.

[Baroness Thornton]

Let us hope that the people who buy it are public-spirited enough to know that they need to develop it and that that can be done. That puzzled me when I read the fascinating article, which I recommend to noble Lords. I thought, “A new antibiotic is out there and it is not available to us, for goodness’ sake”.

I congratulate the Government on the five-year plan. It is important, however, that the impetus behind it works, that the incentivisation schemes unlock investment in AMR, that we do not face the same issues being faced in America, and that implementation of the plan is speeded up.

Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Thornton

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 12th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend will forgive me if I ask for a point of clarification. If Amendment 9 is passed, after the sunset clause is implemented, powers could only be made in relation to a healthcare agreement. However, Clause 3 says that a healthcare agreement can concern either healthcare provided outside the United Kingdom and paid for by the United Kingdom, or healthcare provided in the United Kingdom with another country paying. It does not require reciprocity. Is that quite the restriction my noble friend was suggesting, since it could still be unilateral, not reciprocal?

[Baroness Thornton]

I thank the Minister for tabling this sunset clause; she is quite right to do so. I had not thought of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, but it is a good one. However, we support the amendment.

Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Thornton

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 20, I will speak also to my Amendment 21 and to Amendment 43, having notified the Minister that I intended do so. These amendments are all concerned with protecting the interests of individual travellers, residents and their families who depend on reciprocal healthcare arrangements and could be affected by the UK leaving the EU without an agreement in place; so all three amendments are about leaving with no deal.

Amendment 20 addresses the duty to provide information, Amendment 21 addresses the issue of costs to British citizens, and Amendment 43 prevents the Secretary of State making regulations on healthcare agreements unless there is a withdrawal agreement with the EU, or the House of Commons has explicitly approved leaving the EU with no deal—the Minister might be familiar with this amendment since it has appeared in other Brexit legislation.

If we crash out, it seems unlikely that the necessary deals with 27 countries to provide reciprocal healthcare payments will be in place; the Minister admitted as much at his briefing, which we attended, and he suggested that we should get health insurance. It might take time to sort out our healthcare, so we have tabled three amendments which we hope will assist this process.

First, we believe that the Government should publicise the changes and provide guidance to people about the impact on their lives, including insurance requirements. That means more than just posting something on the NHS England website. The amendment does what I know that Ministers—and certainly Bill teams—do not like: it puts down a list of places where the changes should be publicised.

Secondly, the Government should have arrangements in place to reimburse British citizens for healthcare costs incurred outside the UK—which would previously have been covered by EU arrangements—for a period of up to six months, until the new healthcare agreements come into effect. This is an obvious, basic protection that should be in place to avoid the risk that our citizens are charged for healthcare because of even two or three weeks of turmoil or churn while agreements are not in place.

Thirdly, Amendment 43 is about how to safeguard reciprocal healthcare in a no-deal situation. It mirrors the amendment that we tabled to the Trade Bill and is about accountability to Parliament. I will be interested to receive the Minister’s reaction to these three proposals, which are about protecting people’s interests in a no-deal situation. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

In so far as the noble Baroness has referred to Amendment 43, which we might otherwise reach on Thursday, I completely understand the motivation, which we have seen elsewhere, to make no deal so intolerable a prospect that one does not want to enter into it—I do not want us to do so and neither do the Government.

If we were to do the responsible thing and pass this legislation before 29 March, so that we have it in place, but with such an amendment within it, that would be extremely ill-advised. If there were no memorandum of understanding with other countries, leading to a bilateral agreement, the result may be that even the regulations that are going through the House would not enable the Secretary of State to have the power to pay for healthcare for UK citizens in other European countries. If we are going to give people reassurance—the Government have an obligation to do that and Amendment 20 says we should do that—we can do so only on the basis of the law as it is. If this legislation were to have such a poison pill added to it, I am afraid that it would make it impossible for civil servants to give the degree of reassurance that we should be giving people.

Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Thornton

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 1st February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I think I am with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others in having been sceptical of an opt-out system, not least when we came to discuss it at some length—I see the noble Lord, Lord Reid, there—during the passage of the Human Tissue Act back in 2003 or thereabouts. We looked at it at some length. That prompted the pursuit by subsequent Governments, including the coalition Government in which I served, of every available opportunity to try to increase donor rates, not least by improving the system of transplant co-ordination and the supply of specialist transplant nurses.

My first point, to which I hope my noble friend the Minister will respond positively, is that I do not share the view that under this Bill resources for information and for the transplant system—in particular for an increase in specialist transplant nursing support—are in any sense in competition. We need to do both, and I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that we will seek wherever possible to have exactly that support through transplant nurses. It is really important that we do. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was referring to that when she referred to Spain. At the time, we looked in some detail at the Spanish example. Spain said to us that probably the bigger element in its success was not that it was an opt-out system but that it had really effective transplant co-ordination and strong support for families through trained nursing and support staff. That is the most important thing.

However—not to rerun Second Reading, to which I contributed—we have an ethical obligation to secure the maximum availability of organs for those waiting for them, some of whom, sadly, continue not to get access to organs and to die while waiting. We have an ethical conflict, because it is right to say that the state does not own our bodies. We have a right to determine what happens. My noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy was absolutely correct in pointing out that the Bill offers an opportunity for those who wish to control what happens to their organs and bodies after death to make that explicit.

This brings me to my final point, which is to further thank my noble friend Lord McColl for raising these issues. If we are to go down this path, it is absolutely essential that the families of everyone who may be—sadly after death—a donor must be aware that they had an opportunity to consider this. Whether they took any action is a matter for them. We must be confident that the information, not only in the first instance but subsequently, is such that nobody could reasonably be expected not to have been presented with this as an issue they should consider. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked what happens if the family disagree. They may, but the law is then very clear that the transplant co-ordinator, nurse or whoever must take the decision must do so seeking to determine what the loved one who has died would have thought. The evidence is not: what do you think, as the person in a qualifying relationship? It is: what can you say about what the view would have been of the person who has died and whose organs are potentially to be donated? That is the issue and the judgment that has to be made, and of course that is where the ethical issue really bites. It is not what we might think about our loved ones, but what we know about what they themselves thought about what should happen to their own organs. For those reasons, my noble friend’s amendments—I know he will not press them, and I think that is absolutely right—have very helpfully given an opportunity for the Minister to give us reassurance on both those points.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall say just a few words. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile, Lord O’Shaughnessy and Lord Lansley, have made the arguments extremely well, so there is no need to repeat them. I just make the practical point that if we want this on the statute book it has to be unamended. We can have these discussions— they are helpful—but that is the truth of the matter. We will all have received a briefing yesterday from Kidney Care UK, which stated that three people die every day waiting for a kidney. That is what we need to bear in mind.