Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Lord Patel Excerpts

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

Finally, the Minister’s letter of 9 November updates on the ongoing process of consultation on Clause 16 with the devolved authorities. The Scottish Health and Sport Committee has agreed to recommend consent to the clause to the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland officials have laid a legislative consent memorandum at the Assembly business office for scrutiny. However, in Wales there are “residual concerns”. Can the Minister tell us what these are and what has been done to address them? As a result of the overall consultation, does the Minister envisage changes to the Bill on Report and, if so, will he undertake to ensure that any such amendments are circulated to Peers in advance of their submission to the Marshalled List? I beg to move.

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 127, I also speak in support of the amendments referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, on consultation with the devolved Administrations. While Scotland is devolved in terms of healthcare, the regulations on medicines and medical devices, particularly market authorisation, is not. I support the comments on consulting the devolved Administrations and I have no doubt that the Minister will respond.

I am extremely grateful to my friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for adding his name to my Amendment 127. I am pleased to see that he might speak to it later. The amendment would add to line 9, page 24 of the Bill, the words

“patients and end users directly affected by the regulations”.

It would strengthen the consultation provision by requiring that patients and end users be part of any consultation relating to potential new regulation on medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices.

Clause 41 creates a duty to consult the relevant authorities when using the delegated powers to make provisions for medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices. However, this duty refers only to who the authority thinks it should consult, giving a wide area of discretion and providing no guidance or guarantee on consulting patients and end users of medicines and medical devices.

The Cumberlege review found widespread failure to listen to patients’ voices. It recommended that the regulatory framework underpinning the MHRA, and medicines and medical devices in general, be reformed to better take into account patients’ perspectives in the future. In addition, the review recommended that the MHRA regulatory framework should have a requirement to demonstrate how patient views have been taken into account and influenced regulatory design. With this in mind, it is surely crucial that any duty to consult on the exercise of powers should also include reference to the need to consult patients and end users of medicines and medical devices where that is considered reasonable.

I have been deliberately brief because this proposal is so obvious that I do not, I hope, need to speak at length. I am sure that the Minister recognises this, and I look forward to his response.

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, all the amendments in this group deal with the very important question of consultation. As the DPRRC has pointed out in its report on the Bill, consultations are not a substitute for proper parliamentary scrutiny, which the Bill so obviously fails to provide, but in the absence of any real parliamentary mechanisms for real scrutiny, consultations take on an added importance.

Clause 41 is slightly improved by the Government’s Amendment 126. The obligation to consult the devolved Administrations is obviously critical, although it would be helpful if the Minister could explain why in Northern Ireland it is the Department of Health that must be consulted rather than Ministers.

The Minister may also be able to reassure the Committee that the government amendment does not provide only one overriding consultation; the text seems to suggest that when it refers to carrying out “a public consultation”. Can we assume that there will be not portmanteau consultations but individual consultations on each proposed significant policy introduction, change or amendment?

The introduction of a new obligation in proposed new subsection (1B) to include a summary in the consultation document, with the relevant authority’s assessment of the matters addressed by the proposed regulations is welcome, as far as it goes. But quite what depth or rigour should these assessments have? Can the Minister assure the Committee that the assessments will have the same reach, depth and rigour as the standard impact assessments produced for SIs?

Apart from naming the devolved Administrations, it is notable that the government amendment does not specify, or even hint at, who should be consulted in any of these consultations. The Bill is entirely silent on the matter. This leaves open the possibility of narrowly drawn consultations and the omission of important interested groups, not to mention short consultations over holiday or very busy periods. I am particularly concerned that the voice of the medical research charities be clearly heard in all the appropriate consultations. I remind the Committee of my interests as chair of the Association of Medical Research Charities, whose 150 members spent £1.9 billion on research last year—the same amount as was spent by the Government. Despite this enormous contribution, the Government have form in overlooking the medical research charities sector. It took an amendment moved in your Lordships’ House to persuade the Government to agree that the board of UKRI should include a person with experience of the sector. We do not want to see the same omission here.

Our Amendment 129 is very similar to Amendment 128 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which we are happy to support. Both amendments list who must be included in any consultation. The lists should not be contentious or surprising. We include

“representatives of the relevant patient groups … medical research charities”

and pharma as statutory consultees, along with academic researchers. We leave it open to the relevant authorities to add others to that list.

Our amendment also addresses the problems that could be caused by short and short-notice consultations, perhaps over holiday periods among a less than comprehensive range of consultees. It simply requires the relevant authorities to publish on their websites the terms, start dates and lengths of the consultations, along with the proposed consultees and

“date and method of the publication of … results”.

I rather hope that the Minister will tell us that this part of our amendment is not necessary. I hope that he will see our amendment as an opportunity to give firm assurances to the Committee that the groups we name will be consultees, and about the form and detail of each consultation, as we propose. I hope the Minister will feel able to oblige us.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Patel]

108: Clause 35, page 19, line 22, at end insert—
“( ) The Secretary of State must disclose information for the purpose of warning the public about concerns relating to a medical device where there is a clear threat to public safety.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to disclose the information where there is a clear threat to public safety.

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 108, I will also speak to Amendment 114. I am immensely grateful to my friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for his support. I beg noble Lords’ indulgence because I intend to explore these two amendments in some depth as I have some concerns about them.

Amendment 108 places a duty on the Secretary of State to disclose information

“where there is a clear threat to public safety.”

Clause 35 provides that the Secretary of State

“may disclose information for the purpose of warning members of the public about concerns that the Secretary of State has in relation to the safety of a medical device.”

This is welcome, but the power is discretionary. There is no duty to disclose information in these circumstances. It is not clear why there should not be an unambiguous duty to disclose information to the public where their safety is an issue. The Government have repeatedly committed themselves in their guidance and policy documents to patient safety as their primary concern, and have given reassurances about it in the other place. However, this clause is yet another example of where there is no explicit legal commitment to patient safety. For this reason, an amendment to this clause is suggested to create a duty to disclose information where there is a threat to medical device safety.

In addition, it must be queried what is meant by a “threat to public safety” and how any such threat is to be judged or even detected. The Cumberlege review reviewed the failure of medical professionals and the system in general to listen to patients’ own reports of pain and the seriously adverse effects of their implants. The duty to disclose a threat is only as meaningful and effective as the processes behind it that monitor and capture the information relating to patients’ adverse events. A safety issue will not be recognised if patients are not being taken seriously.

Part of the findings of the Cumberlege review related to the ineffectiveness of the current yellow card system for self-reporting adverse events. There is a lack of a clear and well-publicised route for patients to report their experiences. Clear and effective processes need to be in place to capture the information relevant to identifying potential threats to public safety. This duty to disclose should be supported by such processes.

Clause 16 gives the power to create an information system, and a later amendment introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on the setting up of a patient safety commissioner, could form part of the processes needed to ensure that the experiences of patients and the reporting of adverse events are effectively monitored, recorded and evaluated. However, effective self-reporting processes and clear routes for patients to self-report need to be established. Clarification of how such reporting is to be integrated into effective communication across the NHS and the medicines and medical device regulatory framework as a whole is needed.

As the Bill stands, so much is left unsaid and what has been laid out for Parliament to discuss was drafted and conceived before the findings of the Cumberlege review were published. Any patient safety commissioner would need to be properly resourced if they were to work in practice—equally there should be more consideration by the Government of processes for patient reporting and communication across the system. That ought to be put before Parliament.

Amendment 114 would mean that Regulation 3B on the requirement for confidentiality in the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 would remain in place. It is suggested in the Bill that this is removed. Clause 37 provides for “Consequential and supplementary provision”. Subsections (3) to (7) of Clause 37 variously amend the Medical Devices Regulations 2002. In particular, subsection (5) removes Regulation 3B from the 2002 regulations. This was only recently inserted into the law by the Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Regulation 3B requires that

“all parties involved in the application of these Regulations must respect the confidentiality of information and data obtained in carrying out their tasks in order to protect … (a) personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018; (b) commercially confidential information … (c) the effective operation of … inspections, investigations or audits.”

It is not clear why the requirement for confidentiality has been removed so soon after it was created. While Clause 35 provides that commercially sensitive data cannot be disclosed except where necessary for the Secretary of State to warn of serious harm in civil proceedings or criminal proceedings, no other clauses in the Bill reflect the similar requirements that have now been removed by Clause 37. It is concerning that in removing the requirement for confidentiality, the Bill seems to emphasise protection for commercial interests more than those of patients and users.

The Government should provide clarity on why they wish to remove this condition to respect patient confidentiality in operating the Medical Device Regulations. This not notwithstanding, Clause 37(5) should be removed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, before I start, let me thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege enormously for putting her name to Amendment 108. I apologise for not alluding to that earlier.

The noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, got it: my amendment leaves it to the discretion of the Secretary of State that there might be times when disclosure is not required.

To my friend the Minister, I say: good try, but I am not convinced. I do not see why my amendment cannot be accepted—it provides discretion but just removes “may”.

As far as Amendment 114 is concerned, the point is exactly this. The Minister may recollect the journalist’s report on the regulation of devices in the EU, which raised concerns about manufacturers not agreeing to provide safety information that they may have had when they were testing the devices. Removing that requirement for manufacturers does not help patient safety—hence my amendment asking to leave Regulation 3B as it is.

I have listened. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 108 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, first, it was a privilege to put my name to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. It is a pleasure to follow her powerful speech, which made the case for an independent patient safety commissioner so powerfully that I am tempted to say that no more needs to be said about the amendment except for the Minister to accept it. But of course I cannot do that. I will try to make a case for why now is the time to accept what the noble Baroness is asking for. The time for her amendment has come.

I strongly support the amendment. It was one of the key recommendations of the noble Baroness’s report First Do No Harm to establish an independent commissioner for patient safety and to do this through legislation. The need to address patient safety as an important aspect of healthcare was identified in England following the publication of the report An Organisation with a Memory. This was the watershed moment in the history of patient safety development. In 2001, a report was produced, Building a Safer NHS for Patients, which led to the establishment of the National Patient Safety Agency for England; a national reporting and learning system was to be developed as part of it. In 2006, Safety First, a report for patients, clinicians and healthcare managers, was published, with the objective of recasting the functions of the National Patient Safety Agency. It was after that that I took the chair of it.

The National Patient Safety Agency did develop several good and respected methodologies and publications, and introduced some fundamental patient safety protocols, but it lacked the power and authority of an organisation established in statute. Functioning as an arm’s-length body of the Department of Health, and at its behest, was not the way to establish patient safety. In my view, it weakened its ability to deliver patient safety across the NHS.

As chair, I remember having to try to persuade management at NHS Confederation meetings that alert notices related to patient safety needed to be implemented. This lack of statutory authority meant that hospital trusts were not required to follow any guidance or alert notices. On Friday 1 June 2012, the functions of the NPSA were transferred to the special commissioning board as the NPSA fell victim to the cull of quangos. So what has happened since? Regulatory organisations have come and gone. NHS structures have changed and continue to do so. The NHS is a bit of a political football; I remember that, when I suggested that the political parties stop using it as one, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, laughed at my comment. Change is a constant feature.

Patient safety documents and policies from 2000 to the present day all sound alarmingly familiar: progress is slow and incremental, even at present. An NAO report criticised the pace of change as regards patient safety, saying that it was too slow and that those who manage trusts focused more on financial budgets than patient safety. One result was the Mid Staffs crisis: we all remember how devastating that report was, particularly in what it had to say about the major patient safety failings.

We now have another devastating report, First Do No Harm. It is the second, and I hope the last, call for us to establish patient safety through legislation and on behalf of patients. The Government’s response to the Francis report defines the current patient safety system. Patient safety became an important aspect of government policy, with several initiatives and three global ministerial meetings, et cetera, but the processes are the same. Have things changed? In my view, not much, especially in terms of a clear demonstration of reducing patient harm. The patient safety organisations that exist are still part of and accountable to NHS departments, not to patients.

The noble Baroness focused her amendment on the safety of medicines and medical devices. Of the top five areas of patient safety errors, harm related to medicines and medical devices rank second and fourth. She is right to focus on these two areas as the first task of the commissioner for patient safety. A 2018 review of errors related to medicine estimated that 237 million errors occur every year in England. The national reporting and learning system had 204,000 incident reports related to medicine, while 712 deaths are attributed yearly to medicine-related harm, costing annually something like £70 million.

Data in relation to the harm associated with medical devices is not as readily available, except when investigated as part of a report such as First Do No Harm. However, figures from the USA can be used as a proxy, as its larger population may give some indication of the scale and types of devices implicated. A recent report in the USA showed the following as examples: 60,000 cases related to the use of surgical mesh; a similar number in relation to defibrillators; and 104,000 cases related to hip prosthesis. There were many more. These data clearly show not just the level of safety issues in relation to medicines and medical devices but the need to address them.

It is time to give patient safety the legal status it needs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said. It is time for a bolder and more ambitious vision to make patient care safer. I believe that her amendment does this and I strongly support it.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

I understand that there may be a delay in the vote taking place in the House for technical reasons. I do not think that we can go on here indefinitely so I suggest that I call the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and we break then regardless.

--- Later in debate ---

There is deep concern about this issue and what happens if Northern Ireland and Great Britain end up with increasingly different legislation covering medicines and medical devices. I look forward to the debate and the Minister’s response.

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 120 and, again, I am very grateful to my friend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for joining me on this amendment. I beg noble Lords’ indulgence because, when I read the legislation and the Bill related to this and then looked at the advice or guidance issued by MHRA, I got more and more confused about what the divergence is going to be, how much of it there will be and how clear the Bill is. I am sorry, but I will be labouring the point at length to get some answers.

My proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on

“regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom”.

This amendment would address the issues of potential regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. In relation to medicines and veterinary medicines, Northern Ireland is referred to separately from the rest of the UK. This means that, as set out in Clause 1(4)(b) and Clause 8(4)(b), the power to make regulations in respect of Northern Ireland lies with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland or both the department and the Secretary of State, when acting together.

Clause 40 limits the capacity of the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to act alone, only allowing it to do so when it would be

“within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and … would not require the consent of the Secretary of State.”

It is not clear in the Bill which areas would be in the sole competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Will the Minister clarify that?

Furthermore, while powers on medical devices are not reserved, the guidance most recently published by the MHRA paints a picture of two different systems—market authorisation and registration, among other issues—and distinguishes between the “Northern Ireland market” and the “Great Britain market”. This implies that regulation different from that in the rest of the UK may be intended for Northern Ireland in respect of medical devices.

The MHRA published guidance on medicines and medical devices based upon the potential situation at the end of the transition period, days before this House was due to sit for the Second Reading of the Bill. This advice implies that a dual system would be operating in respect of Northern Ireland for both medicines and medical devices due to the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, referred. This assumes that the Government will actually honour that agreement. The Northern Ireland protocol requires that EU regulations relating to medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices apply to Northern Ireland.

The MHRA guidance makes a distinction between the EU market, the market of Great Britain and the market of Northern Ireland. It sets out that CE marks will cease to be recognised in the market of Great Britain from July 2023, unless the products in question are from manufacturers based in Northern Ireland. There are essentially two different baskets envisaged in the guidance for manufacturers that are based in Northern Ireland to bring a medicinal or medical product to the markets of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The first is to go through UK-based approved bodies for their assessments and market authorisations, which would be approval for the Great Britain or Great Britain and Northern Ireland markets, but it would not be recognised in the EU. The second is to submit their application to approval or notified bodies in the EEA, gaining a CE mark and thus access to the markets of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the EU without further needing to apply to a UK body for approvals for the Great Britain market. Noble Lords will see how confusing the whole system sounds.

In contrast, manufacturers based in Great Britain would need approval from UK-based bodies to place their products on the market in Great Britain and Northern Ireland but would need to undertake the separate task of getting an EU-based responsible person and applying separately for a CE mark in the EU if they were to bring their product to the EU market.

Further, from 30 June 2023, CE-marked devices originating from the EU market but not manufactured in Northern Ireland will no longer be able to flow to Great Britain. This regulatory set-up in Northern Ireland could therefore be an incentive for EU manufacturers to base their European operations in Northern Ireland to have unfettered access to both markets. Discussions about whether this constitutes state aid and would distort the EU single market are still ongoing.

On the face of the MHRA guidance, it appears that the recognition of the CE mark on medicines and devices coming from Northern Ireland provides easier access for Northern Ireland-based manufacturers to both the UK and EU markets. It certainly suggests a dual system applying between Northern Ireland and the UK, but the extent to which those systems will diverge in substance in future is not clear. It is not clear how systems of pharmacovigilance or the monitoring of medical devices will be co-ordinated for products available in the Great Britain market that are manufactured in Northern Ireland and subject to EU regulations and monitoring. If monitoring systems and databases are to be fit for purpose in the EU, surely it is essential that the UK has access to EU databases. In the absence of this access, how can the Government guarantee, or claim to be prioritising, the safety of patients?

What is clear, because the guidance states it, is that draft regulations with reference to medicines and medical devices exist but have not yet been introduced to Parliament. These draft regulations are what the guidance claims to be based on. If these regulations exist to the extent that the MHRA is publishing guidance based on them on issues of significant policy in these areas, why has this House not had sight of them? Why have they not been included as part of the substance of the Bill where they would receive proper scrutiny and provide much-needed clarity to all stakeholders for medicines and medical devices?

The situation regarding regulatory alignment or divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK is politically charged and should be dealt with explicitly. Given the potential for some aspects of medicine and veterinary medicine to be subject to the distinct competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, there is potential for the requirement to have regard to “attractiveness” to have different interpretations in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Further, the ambiguity surrounding the Northern Ireland protocol and its implications raises the potential for divergence, even where the United Kingdom Government have competence to regulate in respect of medical devices. For these reasons—I hope that I have made this point at length—the Government should clarify the position. This amendment would provide greater transparency about the potential regulatory divergence with a commitment to mitigate where possible.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on these amendments dealing with regulatory divergence and Northern Ireland. I am a signatory to Amendment 119 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.

During Second Reading, I stated that there is the issue of potential regulatory divergence in relation to Northern Ireland, as medicines are a devolved power but medical devices are not. The Bill raises the possibility of future regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, and that matter requires clarification, hence my support for Amendment 119. Both amendments seek to ensure greater accountability and transparency, to which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, referred, in that Parliament should receive reports on regulatory divergence as a means of oversight and accountability—with which I totally agree.

In some areas, this also relates back to the Northern Ireland protocol. There is no doubt that we must ensure the highest level of standards in relation to veterinary medicines, human medicines and medical devices. In his response at Second Reading, the Minister indicated to me that the Government intended to implement the Northern Ireland protocol, but I ask how that squares with the UK internal market Bill, this Bill and the need to ensure that we have the highest standards for medicines, medical devices and veterinary medicines—how does this all square?

I note that the NHS Confederation will continue to follow developments, analyse the implications for the health sector in the UK and push for as much clarity as possible on the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol from 1 January 2021. It has also been stated that Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK customs arrangements constitutionally, so HMRC—not EU officials—and the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency should administer the necessary controls. The MHRA remains responsible for placing the goods on the market and monitoring products once sold, but they will have to be approved through the European procedures because Northern Ireland will be treated as a member state in terms of regulatory decisions.

There is also concern that there will be delays in the import and export of medicines and medical devices, which need to continue to reach patients as quickly as possible, and we must ensure that any such delays are minimised, particularly during a pandemic. Avoiding delays caused by tariffs and regulatory barriers requires the UK and the EU to reach agreement on shared standards, such as manufacturing and inspections, so that goods can be licensed for rapid release into the UK market, or vice versa. With potential new checks and the lack of clarity on how the regulatory framework will apply, this could create unnecessary delays and impact on individual patients but also on medical practitioners.

There is also a need, as the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee said, for the Government to commit to covering all costs to businesses for complying with the protocol, which includes the whole area of medicines. I ask the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, what discussions she and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, have had with Minister Swann in the Northern Ireland Executive, as the Minister responsible for the Department of Health, about these issues, particularly in relation to the measures to minimise and mitigate the impact of divergence and how that will be achieved. We want to ensure the least impact from regulatory divergence on the availability and accessibility of medical devices and any other forms of medicine, whether for humans or for animals.