Medicines and Medical Devices Bill (First sitting)

Rushanara Ali Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 8th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

Not only for hon. Members who were here in the previous Parliament, but for those here to this day, Primodos, sodium valproate and surgical mesh spring to mind. It is important at this point to pay tribute to campaigners such as Impact and the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests, and I am grateful for their support in developing my remarks. We have the potential for a really big moment on patient safety, certainly on those issues.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

It is absolutely right that there should be some way of setting out a hierarchy, with public safety at the top. Like my hon. Friend, I have a major project in my constituency to promote the life sciences, through The Royal London Hospital, Queen Mary University of London and others. It would be great for investment and we want to see that happen. However, in the light of what has recently happened and the public loss of confidence in the focus on public safety, particularly with reference to chlorinated chicken and the rest of it, the public feel great concern about safety. It is important that the Minister is able at least to provide the reassurance that public safety would be at the top of the agenda, with some sort of hierarchy.

[Alex Norris]

I completely agree. I think that if we stood in the street for a bit and just straw-polled people, everybody would say that safety is uppermost and they would see the value in its being set on a higher tier, which is what I am suggesting. We are at this possibly significant moment—I believe it is 8 July—when the noble Baroness Cumberlege will come back with her review into what has happened. Obviously, it is a sign of the times and where we are, but at Second Reading people talked about it coming out in March. The world has passed us by, but I understand that publication of the review is imminent and I am keen for that date of 8 July to be confirmed.

If the review says that there are issues around patient safety, we would expect there to be recommendations and changes, which I think is reasonable. I will return to this theme later in the day. What might this say about the MHRA? Is it possible that the regime that we seek to put in place through the Bill might be overrun by events? If recommendations come out of that, is there a possibility of revisiting that in future stages to be clear about it? That is an argument against the sort of piecemeal regime that the Bill proposes, instead of coming back in, if not two years, then three or four, to set a full codified bringing together of the different Acts into one Bill.

I will finish on amendment 23 by referring to one of my favourite contributions from Second Reading:

“Patient safety is not a partisan issue; it is paramount.”—[Official Report, 2 March 2020; Vol. 672, c.689.]

The Minister may recognise her words. I completely agree with her.

Amendments 24 to 27 essentially make the same provisions across veterinary medicines and medical devices, and I do not intend to rehearse the arguments. On medical devices, surgical matters was a good example. There is the potential for life-changing and wonderful things, but also the real potential to do harm. We want to know that with every hip, breast, knee—whatever it is that is done—safety is paramount. Amendments 22 and 23 seek to create a special place for patient safety. I hope that the Minister will accept them.

[Jo Churchill]

First, patient safety is paramount. That is where I began my journey into Parliament. In my case, it was access to cancer drugs—something close to my heart. With regard to Orkambi, I understand and share the frustration felt by everyone. My heart goes out to those affected, who are very often parents. The cystic fibrosis campaign has, I think, a 98% sign up of all parents who have had children with cystic fibrosis. On their fight for Orkambi, I am sure everybody feels sympathy for them, because it took so long to provide access.

Drug companies have a responsibility here. This refers slightly to the comments the hon. Member for Nottingham North made about life science sectors or pharmaceutical companies all being large. The drug companies have a responsibility to price their drugs responsibly in a way that reflects the benefits that they bring to patients. I feel that the arrangements that we have in place in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the cancer drugs fund have helped people to get access to medicines rapidly. There is still work to do, but they need to be marketised at a fair price. We made a commitment in our manifesto to establish an innovative medicines fund to address slightly some of the points that he made.

Amendments 22 to 27 relate to the three considerations the appropriate authority must have regard to when making regulations in relation to medicines for human and veterinary use and medical devices. The effect of the amendment would be to remove the requirement to have due regard to the attractiveness of the UK as a place to market and develop these products, and to assert the primacy of patient safety above all other considerations.

The safety of patients and the environment, people and animals—when moving into the area of veterinary medicine—absolutely underpins the regulatory decisions that are made. It is absolutely the case that we would never seek to make a regulatory change that puts somebody’s health at risk; that would be counter-intuitive. However, I do not think that patient safety or safety in general is in conflict with the other considerations that these amendments are intended to affect.

The purpose of the regulation is to ensure that we do what is in the best interests of UK patients, or the veterinary sector when it comes to animals, so that they receive the best possible treatment without undue impact on the environment. It is likely that having a dynamic and innovative market, where treatments or technologies are developed in the UK, contributes to the overall benefit of the patient, as those treatments will become available to them. These are not binary principles where regulation works only in the interests of one or the other.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North mentioned Nottingham—I also shout out to Cambridge, which is just down the road, and London, which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow mentioned. This country’s life sciences sector is envied. The Government have committed to supporting it through the life science industrial strategy, in which we have sought to address the challenges faced by the industry and provide an environment that encourages companies to start and grow. All large companies start somewhere, and the hon. Member for Nottingham North knows that in the incubators around Nottingham, Cambridge and even my constituency of Bury St Edmunds, lots of small firms are working on the most incredible things to help patients.

[Rushanara Ali]

Nobody doubts that innovation will thrive if there are proper frameworks and safeguards in place, but it is clear that, in a post-Brexit world, our Government will want to see more innovation in research and development and investment, and sometimes the choices will come into conflict. There will be a trade-off, and we must ask what is a greater priority. Frankly, in recent years, some of the narrative that we have heard from the Government has not inspired confidence. I am looking for a very clear message that public safety will be set in stone. It is not good enough for Ministers to give reassurance; it has to be set in stone. We have to have confidence that public safety will not be compromised in the interest of getting investment. That is necessary, but it should not come at the cost of public safety.

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The reason why the safety of human medicines is listed first is because safety is the paramount objective in everything.

In the life sciences industrial strategy, we have sought to address the challenges faced by the industry, provide an environment that helps companies to grow, and support collaboration between the NHS and industry better to adopt innovative treatments and technologies. Life science is one of the most productive and strategically important parts of the UK economy—it is worth more than £74 billion per annum—and we wish to cement our position as a world leader in that field to allow patients to benefit from cutting-edge treatments as soon as possible. The Bill is a key part of that, and it also keeps safety right at the top of the agenda. It is therefore right that, when we make regulations, the appropriate authority considers their impact and looks at whether they would constrain companies from seeking to bring new and innovative medicines or medical devices to market.

The concern of the hon. Member for Nottingham North is that the consideration of the UK’s attractiveness, if applied, would mean a reduction in regulation on the sector, such that safety concerns would arise. That is simply not the case. I appreciate that he would like clarity on how the attractiveness consideration would work in practice, and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire quizzed me about that too. The consideration would not mean reduced regulatory barriers to manufacturing, for example, as that would be to the detriment of patient safety. No! We have not sought to define attractiveness in the Bill, because the definition is as it is in ordinary language. There is no hidden or nefarious intent here. We want the UK to remain at the cutting edge of medical advancement, and that is done by recognising that the pharmaceutical industry benefits patients by making innovative therapies available through clinical trials and bringing them to market, or, indeed, collaborating in the event that expedited access to treatments is necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

I understand the hon. Member’s passion for this area. As she said, she has tried to find every nook and cranny. I gently repeat that the Bill is not the right place for amendment 1, but I commit to writing to my Foreign and Commonwealth Office counterpart on this point and to exploring it further, if that would be of assistance to her. However, I say again that the Bill is not the vehicle for the amendment and I ask her to withdraw it.

[Rushanara Ali]

I welcome the Minister’s offer to write to the Foreign Office, and I commend in particular my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston for what she said. I have worked on human rights issues for other at-risk groups and there is a sense of concern about the position we may inadvertently find ourselves in. Will the Minister, in addition to writing to the Foreign Office, commit to ensuring that there is a review within Government to ensure that our safeguards are up to date? While I accept that the legislation is there, some gaps may need to be addressed and, if they cannot be addressed by the Bill, we need to find a way to assure ourselves that we have all the right safeguards in place. That will require a Health Department lead working with the Foreign Office and others.

[Jo Churchill]

As I said, I am willing to write to the Minister for Asia and the Pacific to explore this matter further, but I am afraid at this point that is all I can commit to.

Covid-19 Response

Rushanara Ali Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, it is very important that the scheduled vaccination programme continues wherever possible, and we have protected it as much as possible. We must remember that, with the hope of a vaccine for coronavirus, so, too, will we have to redouble efforts to vaccinate children for MMR and for flu this autumn. Everybody will need to get a flu jab if they possibly can, and we will have more to say on that soon. It is really important that people vaccinate and that anybody who hears messages from anti-vaxxers stands up to them and says that what they say is wrong and harmful.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

There are reports that covid-19 test results are coming in some 96 hours after testing. In that time, health workers and their families are at risk of catching the virus. Will the Health Secretary confirm whether there are enough reagents, specifically in acute settings, to perform all covid-19 tests within 24 hours?

[Matt Hancock]

Obviously, being able to perform all tests within 24 hours would be a great success. We are trying, as much as possible, to shorten the amount of time it takes. The average time is much, much shorter than 96 hours, and I will write to the hon. Lady with an exact figure of the time that it takes in acute settings. It is much shorter than the time that she mentions. All test results under 24 hours would be great. Sometimes it is just a matter of minutes or hours depending on how busy the test centre is.

A& E Departments: Staffing

Rushanara Ali Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

My heart wants to sink every time I hear of any assaults on emergency workers. That is why I brought forward a private Member’s Bill a few years ago, which I know the hon. Member supported, and I wish the prosecuting authorities used it more frequently. Any attack on our emergency workers is an attack on all of us, because they are there to save our lives and protect us in our most difficult moments.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as our emergency service workers, NHS staff urgently need guaranteed accommodation near their workplace and food supplies, and that the Government need to make those practical things available to them immediately, along with PPE?

[Chris Bryant]

One of the things I have been so angry about over the past few days is the panic buying going on, with people virtually elbowing one another out of the way to get the last remaining courgette or tin of tomatoes. When I see that, I think to myself, what will happen when the poor person coming off their long shift at A&E at 8 or 10 o’clock at night finds that there is literally nothing left in the shop to buy? The person who was so greedy, hoarding and selfish will then turn up at A&E in two weeks’ time and be treated by somebody who was unable to get enough food. My fundamental premise is that we can only get through all this together, because in the end we achieve far more by our common endeavour than we do by going it alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

Will the Minister give way?

[Helen Whately]

If the hon. Lady will let me, I will make a little progress, as I believe I have less than five minutes left.

We know that we must keep NHS staff safe, but we must also support them and their work. The Government are working with the NHS on a package of support for NHS staff to help them through the coming weeks and months, which includes guidance to their line managers; support for occupational health; and psychological and emotional support, because, as the hon. Member for Rhondda said, they are facing extremely challenging times, and we are very aware of the emotional demands that will place on our frontline staff. I urge every NHS employer to be making sure that staff are getting food supplies—hot meals and hot drinks. Whatever NHS staff need to help them get through each day, they should be getting. The Government have committed to funding for health and social care to support us through the coronavirus. That funding should be being used and we should make sure that staff are being helped in every way that they can be.

[Rushanara Ali]

I just have a suggestion relating to NHS workers and overcrowded places. London has a lot of underused properties—empty properties owned by foreign investors. Will the Minister consider making sure that local authorities have powers to use those temporarily to house NHS workers who need to be able to be close to work? Will she make sure that there is a sense of urgency, because she is talking about weeks and months, but NHS workers in my constituency need the protective equipment now and many of them do not have it.

[Helen Whately]

The protective equipment is being distributed at pace and urgently. I talk of weeks and months because we should not think this situation we are coping with will last just a few days. We will need to support our NHS through these weeks and months. I know that NHS trusts are looking at the accommodation that their workforce will need. I wish to make the important point about the measures that the Government have been taking to make sure that the children of key workers, NHS staff and social care staff are included and are cared for at school, so that these staff do not have to worry about their children’s education. I also wish to thank each and every teacher and support worker who was at school today looking after children so that our NHS and social care staff can look after us.

Before coronavirus hit us, we had already committed to increasing the NHS workforce, particularly boosting the staff it needs in pressure points such as emergency departments. For instance, we have committed to funding an extra 1,500 undergraduate medical school places per year, which is a 25% increase. We are opening five new medical schools across England, often in areas that currently do not have medical training facilities, so we are going to be able to get doctors to the places that most need them. We have also committed to 50,000 more nurses in the NHS, and we are increasing the funding for nursing, midwifery and some allied health professional students studying at English universities to at least £5,000 per academic year, and up to £8,000 a year.

I would like to thank all Members for their contributions to this debate. The coronavirus outbreak is the biggest public health emergency in a generation. It calls for decisive action, at home and abroad, of the kind not normally seen in peacetime. I wish to end my remarks by again sending our country’s thanks and unending support to all our colleagues on the NHS and social care frontline tonight. It is they who will fight back this virus. It is they who are putting themselves in harm’s way to help our families. I know each and every Member of this House, and everyone across the country, will be eternally grateful to them for that. I make this commitment: we are there for you, the NHS staff, and we will do all that we can to support you at this most difficult time in our history.

Question put and agreed to.

Covid-19

Rushanara Ali Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We are making it constantly.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Coronavirus has already claimed the life of one of my constituents, and my thoughts are with his family. What action will the Secretary of State take to prevent the closure of the Mildmay Hospital in my constituency, which is much needed to relieve some of the pressure on the Royal London Hospital? Will the Secretary of State explain what action the Government will take to put restrictions on the increasing price hikes on the supply side of goods and on panic buying? Panic buying is understandable, given that the guidance is changing, but we need to get a grip on it to protect vulnerable and poor people in our constituencies.

[Matt Hancock]

We are looking at all those points. With respect to the last one, that is a matter that the Environment Secretary, who is responsible for the food supply, is looking at very closely. We are confident in the food supply of this country, even in the grip of this crisis, but we have to make sure that people behave responsibly in buying only what they need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rushanara Ali Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

There has been much discussion today of international recruitment, but alongside that we are committed to boosting our home-grown workforce, particularly to achieve our ambition of an extra 50,000 nurses in the NHS and 6,000 more GPs.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

At a time when the NHS is under pressure as never before because of coronavirus, does the Secretary of State agree that to close Mildmay Mission Hospital in my constituency would be an act of unbelievable folly? It is a specialist unit for people with HIV/AIDS, and to force those patients into the mainstream would endanger lives. Can he commit today to providing the much needed additional funding of £5 million a year to save this very important hospital, which is doing very important work?

[Edward Argar]

I welcome, as I am sure we all do, the huge advances in HIV/AIDS care and treatment in recent years. The hon. Member and her trust came to see me recently to discuss this case. Following that meeting, I understand that NHS England, the clinical commissioning group and others met the trust to discuss the issue and the way forward. That is the right forum in which to find the right way forward—a way forward driven by the clinical evidence of the right approach.