Access To Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill

Chris Heaton-Harris Excerpts

Friday 29th January 2016 Commons Chamber

I do not say for a moment that I have converted other hon. Members to socialism over the winter, but I certainly think that we have all spoken the language of priorities in saying what we really think is important in taking these issues forward. My mother always told me that compassion was everything. These measures certainly do represent compassion, but compassion combined with a common-sense approach to a problem the solving of which has multi-party support. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in due course.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

Members may be aware that unlike the initial stages of my Bill, the journey of the Off-patent Drugs Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds)—which is, coincidentally, further down on the Order Paper today—enjoyed widespread support from Members of this House, and outside this place among a whole host of charities and non-governmental organisations. My old colleague Jonathan Evans, a former Member of the European Parliament and the former Member for Cardiff North, introduced a similar Bill on these matters, which also gained widespread support. I have watched the progress of these Bills closely and read the briefings provided on them by several charities, and I could not help but notice the obvious links with my Bill and the importance of the subject it covers—increasing the use of effective off-label drugs.

The amendments that we are considering seek to work with the ideas of the Off-patent Drugs Bill and meet the same goal of spreading the use of off-label drugs. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Torfaen for working with me, and others, so closely to include some of his very good ideas and thoughts in my Bill. He deserves a huge amount of credit for the work he has put into this, alongside the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who have been unbelievably strong champions of these issues.

The new clauses and amendments I am supporting do not reflect exactly the original Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Torfaen. That Bill sought to require the Secretary of State to seek licences for off-patent drugs in their new purposes. As the Government stated at the time, as the licensing authority in the UK, the Secretary of State cannot take up such a duty. However, that does not mean that a similar end result of increasing the use of such drugs cannot be achieved by other means. I very much hope that we can do so through this Bill.

Breakthroughs in research mean that several existing drugs have been found to be highly effective in treating conditions other than the ones for which they were originally produced. They potentially have huge life-saving effects and can alleviate the suffering of many people for many conditions. There are so many well-known examples. They were widely discussed on Second Reading of the Off-patent Drugs Bill, so I will not repeat all of them. The list includes the likes of tamoxifen and zoledronic acid, and of course the simple drug aspirin, which has so many other benefits in so many areas. The examples mentioned when we debated the hon. Gentleman’s Bill speak for themselves in showing us why his new clauses and amendments are so important.

As the hon. Gentleman has said in support of his Bill, doctors are nervous of prescribing off-label drugs. Even if a GP strongly believed in prescribing an off-label drug to a patient, they could well be put off. There are several reasons for that, and they were detailed in briefings circulated at the time. One is the matter of personal liability, which I will talk about in relation to other amendments. General Medical Council guidance shows that clinicians can currently prescribe off-label drugs, but that there are significant disincentives to do so. It states that a licensed treatment should be considered before an off-label or unlicensed treatment. It also indicates a greater level of responsibility for the doctor prescribing off-label, and therefore a potentially greater risk of liability, which would be a disincentive for a doctor in prescribing an off-label drug. Before a clinician has even started down this track, they are wary of picking an off-label medicine.

There is little incentive for a pharmaceutical company to pay for a licence when a drug can be manufactured generically. There is no incentive for any company to market the drug for a new indication, and there is no proper guidance for the use of such a drug. Without any stamp of approval, any marketing or any mechanism to provide guidance, there is nothing to encourage clinicians to use an off-label drug, other than their own medical knowledge.

Drugs without a licence for their second use are not marketed, so there is a lack of awareness, and the prescribing of them therefore varies when a new indication arises. There is no trusted and simple way to spread information about off-label drugs that are working. That means that some doctors may use the drug if they know of the indication, but lots may not. Without a system for sharing such information and spreading knowledge about these drugs, medical professionals deciding whether or not to prescribe them have to spend a huge amount of time reading the literature and undertaking research. The explicit mention, through the new clauses and amendments, of the inclusion of such drugs in the database will ensure that information about them is shared and reviewed, and that appropriate evidence is provided. By spreading awareness, the new clauses and amendments will therefore help to make prescribing more consistent.

On Second Reading of the Off-patent Drugs Bill, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said that experts in certain fields will prescribe many off-patent drugs whenever they feel it is necessary. For example, off-label prescribing is quite common in the treatment of secondary cancers. Experts in that area will have experience and will be aware of the evidence for use, but many other medical professionals will not be in such a position. If a drug is not in the “British National Formulary”, the dose cannot be checked.

When a clinician uses a drug every day or a specialist in a field sees conditions regularly, they know what works and what is best, and will therefore feel very comfortable in prescribing off-label. However, every medical professional is not an expert in every field. For the majority of the time, patients are not with such specialists. Their first point of call is not a clinical physician working in only one field, but a GP in their local practice or a nurse in their local surgery. I believe that the database has huge potential in helping to spread the knowledge and expertise required for better and further use of such drugs.

I hope that the amendments I have tabled will be agreed by the House—I believe they represent common sense—and that the Minister will listen to Members who have tabled the other amendments and new clauses. Although some of them are probing amendments, a huge amount of effort has gone into all of them. He is aware of the time and cross-party work that has gone into getting the Bill to this point. That has basically been driven by the hon. Members for Torfaen and for Central Ayrshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and, to a certain extent, me. I would like to think that we will have got to a certain place by the end of today’s sitting, and that we can all leave the Chamber feeling that we have done some good.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on his success in bringing the Bill so far. The fact that we have reached even this stage is no small testament to his hard work on the Bill, particularly the discussions about the removal of the areas of concern—clauses 3 and 4—and the fact that he has been gracious enough to allow me and the hon. Members for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) to badger or cajole him into allowing us to table new clauses 1 to 6, but specifically my new clauses 4 and 6.

The Minister was not in the Chamber on 6 November to hear the arguments of the Members who proposed and supported the Off-patent Drugs Bill. Since then, however, he has engaged with many of us, for which I thank him. We felt that his Department’s response simply was not correct. Doctors may have been able to prescribe medicines for uses outside their licence or off-label where that was in the best interest of their patients, as the guidance says, but they just did not do so, or at least not consistently throughout the medical profession or the field and irrespective of the patient’s postcode. The prescribing of such drugs is more common in oncology, paediatrics, pain management and palliative care, which adds to the lottery effect for the patient.

The need for an action plan for an off-patent drug pathway is undeniable. When there is a strong indication of effectiveness, their routine use for an alternative indication should be secured. For example, the use of bisphosphonates, which were originally developed to treat osteoporosis, are now commonly used by 36,000 women living with secondary breast cancer in this country. Those drugs have already been through phased trials. No one in this place is suggesting that the highest levels of safety should not be applied to drug research and licensing at all times, but efficacy should drive clinicians’ decision making.

Patients, too, have a voice on this issue. I found my patient’s voice after my second primary cancer, and I wanted to use it for the benefit of others. Here I am now asking the Minister—not for the first time—to use his position to find a way to unleash the potential of research in this country and to unblock the system for everyone. My oncologist told me that a second primary cancer was luck—bad luck, but just luck—and I hope that we can all improve the odds just a little bit today.

I believe in the power of patients, clinicians, charities and pharmaceuticals to do the right thing—to increase their knowledge for those whose daily lives are dominated by serious disease and debilitating illnesses, and to ensure that treatments exist to help them. Particularly in the area of off-patent repurposed drugs, they need to be supported by key players, such as NICE, the MHRA, NHS England and medical research charities.

I assure the Minister that it is not mere chance the new clauses and amendments are supported by Members from all four corners of our nation. It is to show solidarity with our constituents—north to south, east to west—who want a co-ordinated approach. One of the most frustrating things for patients is the clogged nature of our drugs pathway. It seems to be beyond us to get drugs licensed, whether repurposed or not, and to the patient in a timely way. I ask the Minister to provide a timeline to support any action that can be taken.

New clauses 2 and 3 would require the National Institute for Health Research to develop and introduce a mechanism for gathering and recording evidence. Last week, I was surprised to learn from Professor Bruce, a clinician at the NIHR working in the musculoskeletal biomedical research unit, that in 50 years only one drug has been licensed for the treatment of lupus. Sadly, that licensed drug has spent four years being considered by NICE and is not available for wider use. To avoid the heavy use of steroids for the condition, rituximab is often used—a drug that was originally developed for lymphoma and rheumatoid arthritis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We now come to amendment 1—

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am unsure of the process. What happened to amendment 13?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It comes later. It is about three pages further on in the dossier. It has not been lost, and we will be coming to it, so the hon. Gentleman can rest assured. It is there.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, leave out lines 7 to 9.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 11, page 1, line 18, in clause 2, leave out from beginning to “involves” in line 19 and insert

“In this section, “innovative medical treatment” means medical treatment for a condition that”.

Amendment 2, page 2, line 26, leave out clause 3

Amendment 3, page 3, line 19, leave out clause 4

Amendment 4, page 3, line 40, in clause 5, leave out “this Act” and insert “section 2”

Amendment 12, page 3, line 42, in clause 5, leave out paragraph (b)

Amendment 5, page 4, line 1, in clause 5, leave out “this Act” and insert “section 2”

Amendment 6, page 4, line 3, in clause 5, leave out “this Act” and insert “section 2”

Amendment 14, page 4, line 8, in clause 6, leave out “Sections 1 to 5” and insert “Sections 1, 2 and 5”

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I just thought I would check about amendment 13, Mr Deputy Speaker. This whole experience has been a steep learning curve when it comes to procedure in the House. Perhaps we have invented a few things on the side as well, given how we have gone about our business here. I do not want to speak too soon, but if we could conduct all our health debates in the positive and constructive tone that has characterised these debates and the process behind the Bill, we might improve our heath service in leaps and bounds, rather than getting caught up in unnecessary politics. But that is where we are.

My amendments 1, 2 and 3 would remove, among other provisions, two clauses on clinical negligence. I want to talk about the reasons for their removal and the original idea behind the clauses. As right. hon. and hon. Members who have been following the progress of my Bill will know, many of the ideas in it came from Lord Saatchi’s Medical Innovation Bill in another place. Those ideas have not had the smoothest of journeys in this place. I have been regularly reminded by hon. Members—I thank those here today—and others outside this place that these clauses have not enjoyed the support of stakeholders.

Such concerns have been around since before the Bill was even drafted. Unfortunately, the echoes of those concerns haunted the first mention of the word “innovation” in the clause, and I decided from conversations I have had that those concerns could not be quelled in time. Throughout the process, I was clear that I wanted to listen to everybody with something to say on this matter. I have met and read the briefings of everyone who has contacted me wishing to share their views, and I hope it has been evident that I have been up front, honest and very clear about my intentions. I tried to solve the concerns of Members and the medical community who believed the clause would have negative and unintended consequences. That is why I tabled these amendments.

I hope that this process reflects favourably on Parliament and shows how a piece of possible legislation can evolve with a huge amount of stakeholder engagement and with parliamentary opinion taken on board. Since the beginning, I have focused on the sharing of good practice and transparency—and, indeed, on the failures of treatments through a database. Those ideas are reflected in clause 2 and have received much support.

I wanted to maintain the camaraderie built up around the Bill and have been unable to find the support I needed for the more controversial clauses, 3 and 4. Clause 3 sets out the steps that a doctor would need to take to show that he or she had acted responsibly using the Bill. They were intended to reflect the steps that a responsible doctor could be expected to take under common law when innovating. In relation to a proposed treatment, clause 3 would require the innovating doctor to

“obtain the views of…appropriately qualified doctors”

with

“appropriate expertise and experience in dealing with patients with the condition in question.”

Clause 4 expressly preserves the common-law Bolam test, the key precedent for judging whether a doctor has acted negligently.

The two clauses received strong opposition, which I will not go into too much. However, I worked closely with many officials from the Department of Health, and I want to thank them, because I had read the briefings that were so adamant in saying how dangerous parts of the Bill would be, so it was nice to have some of the best and brightest legal and parliamentary counsel remind me again and again that they viewed them as perfectly safe and did not see them as a danger to patients.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand the danger of undermining our clinical trials systems, in that, using the Bill, a doctor would have to convince only one colleague before they could go ahead and try something completely new? The recent tragedy of the patient who died while taking part in a phase 1 trial shows the need for steps and procedures to reduce the risk.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The hon. Lady knows that I would obviously have preferred to retain clauses 3 and 4, but I have to agree with her: the body of opinion stands on her side of the argument, not mine, so the simple answer is yes.

I remind the House, though, that there was a decent and honourable purpose behind clauses 3 and 4. Dr John Hickey, the former head of a primary care trust, contacted me to say that,

“as a registered medical practitioner, a former NHS Trust Chairman and with 30 years’ experience in the field of legal medicine with the Medical Protection Society (last five years as Chief Executive), I believe I am adequately qualified to comment on your Bill.”

He went on to say:

“Over the last 30 years I have seen how doctors have increasingly practised defensive medicine…because of the fear of litigation and disciplinary action by their regulators; this defensiveness is not in patients’ best interests.”

In fact, it may interest Members to hear that, in reading the debates on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and the recent debate on the Mesothelioma (Amendment) Bill, I have seen much stated that supports the action I wanted to take in clauses 3 and 4 to reassure doctors who fear litigation. For example, the British Medical Association’s parliamentary brief for the Second Reading of the Off-patent Drugs Bill stated that there were

“two barriers to the use of off-patent drugs in a new indication: 1) Clinicians’ confidence in prescribing: clinicians take on a personal and professional liability if they prescribe an off-patent drug in a new indication”,

and therefore they require reassurance. The brief goes on:

“GMC guidance also indicated a greater level of responsibility for the doctor prescribing off-label and therefore potential greater risk of liability which would be a disincentive for a doctor prescribing off-label drugs”.

That is a simple statement of the purpose of clauses 3 and 4: to give doctors a supplementary way to assure themselves that they are doing the right thing where they might want to do something they believe to be in their patients’ best interests, in a fully evidenced, responsible and honest way.

Similarly, the Multiple Sclerosis Society’s brief on the same subject states:

“Guidance from the General Medical Council is clear that a doctor takes on an extra level of personal liability when prescribing off-label, which would be a significant disincentive to prescribing”.

Breast Cancer Now says that, because of personal liability,

“doctors can be unwilling to prescribe drugs for new purposes, even where…clinical evidence is strong”.

As Lord Freyberg stated in the mesothelioma debate in the other place,

“The fastest way to save lives is to see if the drugs for common cancers work on the rarer ones as well, given the shared mechanism of disease across cancer. This is off-label research and until we fix the issue of liability, as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, we will continue to send thousands, like my sister, to an early grave.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2015; Vol. 767, c. 407.]

There was therefore plenty of reason and evidence to support clauses 3 and 4, but I guess politics is all about being pragmatic, and I believe that the provisions that we have already discussed are worthy in themselves of inclusion in a sensible Bill, because they will do some positive things. It is therefore with some reluctance, as I am sure the House will understand, that I have decided to table these amendments, which strike the elements relating to clinical negligence from my Bill.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I support my hon. Friend’s amendment 2, which would remove clause 3—the responsible innovation clause—from the Bill. I know that his heart was absolutely in the right place when he first put the Bill before the House; however, I am glad he has tabled the amendment, as I am sure the majority of us, if not all of us, are present in the Chamber to ensure that the rest of his Bill, particularly the provisions dealing with the database, gets through.

I have received briefings from all manner of medical bodies, as I am sure all colleagues have, stating that the Bill would do more harm than good for patients. A letter signed by nine different medical bodies, including the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the British Medical Association and the Patients Association, says that

“this Bill will actually harm good innovation by weakening patient protection, adding unnecessary bureaucracy and undermining good scientific practice.”

By removing clause 3, amendment 2, along with amendment 3, will allay those fears. There will no longer be any fears about doctors using quackery, as some people outside the Chamber have put it. Instead, there will merely be a database, set up by the Secretary of State, who may by regulation confer functions on the Health and Social Care Information Centre, although I note that the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) has tabled amendments seeking to change who the Secretary of State has to consult before making any regulations.

At a constituency level, a number of concerns have been raised with me by those in the healthcare sector who believe this Bill, or at least this clause, would do more damage than good. There was a misconception among some people that it remained a carbon copy of Lord Saatchi’s Medical Innovation Bill, which was introduced in the last Parliament. Although my hon. Friend’s Bill is indeed similar to Lord Saatchi’s, the amendments he has tabled will completely dispose of any similarity at all. Innovation sounds like such a good idea. To most people in the street, it sounds like a marvellous thing and therefore taking “innovation” out of the Bill must be a bad move. However, innovation must be achieved through the correct means and must not pose any danger to patients.

The argument goes that innovation has decreased in recent years owing to the legal complexities and doctors’ fears of negligence claims against them if something goes wrong. There is no evidence of that, according to the Medical Protection Society, the Medical Defence Union, the General Medical Council and various other medical—

Debate interrupted.