Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill

Lord Warner Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 23rd January 2017 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Warner]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to have regard to the life sciences sector and access to new medicines and treatments
In discharging, through the provisions established or amended by this Act, its responsibility to secure best value for the National Health Service in purchasing medicines and medical supplies, the Government must have regard to the need to—(a) support a flourishing life sciences sector within the United Kingdom economy; and(b) to ensure patients have speedy access to new medicines and treatments approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.”

[Lord Warner (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 1 is in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. First, I welcome the Minister to his first health Bill as a Minister. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will have a great deal of sympathy with his position of having copped the Committee stage of a Bill in which he had had no previous involvement, because I did exactly the same to him when I left office and left him with the Mental Health Bill—having made, of course, an extremely brilliant speech at Second Reading to introduce the Bill.

I sympathise with the Minister’s position, but that does not mean that we will not probe forcefully on a Bill that is definitely a curate’s egg which does not seem to have left the Commons in as improved a state as it might have done. I am afraid that earlier this morning I separated Amendment 1 from Amendments 2 and 4. I hope that that has not caused too much trouble. I wanted to focus in this amendment on life sciences and the PPRS scheme and on their importance.

Amendment 1 is very straightforward. At the start, the Bill lays a clear duty on the Secretary of State, in discharging the Bill’s provisions, to have regard to supporting a flourishing UK life sciences sector and ensuring that patients have speedy access to NICE-approved new medicines and treatments—a subject to which I think we will come back on a number of occasions. As I made clear at Second Reading, the Department of Health Minister with responsibility for the pharmaceutical industry does have to balance a number of factors, and not just get the cheapest drugs for the NHS. This is what I had to do when I had those responsibilities, and the position is the same today, as I understand it. These factors involve the safety and value for NHS money of medicines, but they also involve helping the UK life sciences industry to grow and flourish and securing speedy access for patients to new drugs that have been approved by NICE.

It is clear that the Government have not done a spectacularly good job with their consultation on the Bill in showing that they understand this balancing act. They certainly have not convinced the pharmaceutical industry—hence this amendment at the start of the Bill. Suspicions have understandably been raised by the inclusion of elements in the Bill that were not in the 2015 consultation on the Bill, including enforcement powers for future voluntary pricing schemes that operate outside the statutory scheme. There is also the issue that the range of products covered by the Bill seems to have been extended, along with the disproportionately bureaucratic information requirements that have now found their way into the Bill.

We will come to many of these issues later, but I will focus here on safeguarding life sciences and the PPRS. Why is this so important? I will start with the life sciences issue. The pharmaceutical industry invests more than £4 billion a year in R&D—more than any other sector. It employs 62,000 people, with a geographical spread that is well outside London and the south-east. Pharmaceutical manufacturing employees have the highest gross value added of any high technology industry, at more than £330,000 per employee. One in four of the world’s top prescription medicines was discovered and developed in the UK. It is a very important and powerful industry for this country.

All this will be put at serious risk by Brexit, as the Prime Minister seems to recognise in the new industrial strategy that she announced today. We know the UK will lose the EMEA through Brexit, but Brexit also poses many other risks to the UK life sciences industry, which could lose market access for its products and see a flight of researchers and research. At such a time the last thing the sector needs is a piece of ill-considered legislation imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens—again, something the Prime Minister said in her industrial strategy that she wants to reduce.

As I made clear at Second Reading, I am not saying that the Government should not act to prevent the NHS being blatantly ripped off under the statutory scheme when a branded good comes off patent, as happened with Flynn Pharma and a Pfizer anti-epilepsy drug. The ABPI has never challenged action in cases of this kind. However, the broad wording of the Bill goes well beyond closing this loophole. It gives the Government the power in the statutory scheme to replace a list-price discount system with one in which a company repays the Government a percentage of net sales, with as yet no clear indication of what this level will be. The industry’s concern is that this will create a precedent that could be easily applied to the voluntary PPRS scheme. Ministerial assurances that this will not happen are simply not the same as legislative safeguards. My reading of the Bill is the same as the ABPI’s, namely that this legal precedent could enable a future Government to unilaterally apply the same approach to the voluntary scheme when a PPRS period ends. This would end a negotiated way of setting prices and encouraging research and innovation that has worked well for industry and successive Governments for more than 50 years.

The second leg of Amendment 1 covers the issue of speedy patient access to new drugs. We will come to this matter later on other amendments so I will say little now, except to remind the Committee that we already have a poor record on the take-up of new approved medicines. For every 100 European patients who can access new medicines in the first year they are available, just 15 UK patients have the same access. Even when NICE has approved drugs and treatments, NHS take-up still lags behind. The first page of Friday’s Times showed the sector’s concerns, with one-fifth of new drugs being rationed and drug companies now openly saying they will no longer launch new drugs early in the UK. Whatever we do with other parts of this Bill when we come to them, I urge the Government at this time of great uncertainty for UK life sciences to put at the beginning of this Bill a statement of intent and reassurance of the kind embodied in Amendment 1. I beg to move.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I support this amendment and compliment the noble Lord, Lord Warner, on his comprehensive introduction of it. I have no intention of repeating everything he said. However, I have a few points. I, of course, support the Government’s intention to try to make sure that the health service is not ripped off, but point out that a very large fine has just been imposed on Pfizer by the competition law regulations in relation to the case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Warner—so even without this Bill, that is working and we must bear that in mind.

What I am particularly concerned about is the potential effect on the life sciences sector, particularly—as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said—in the light of Brexit. There are dangers to our markets and to our researchers. Our research is going elsewhere and researchers from other EU countries coming to us are all in danger because of the Prime Minister’s determination to take us out of the single market and the customs union, which I do not believe is what the public voted for.

The particular issue that concerns me is that although we were told in some of the meetings we had that there had been consultation and there will be more consultation before elements of the Bill are implemented, parts of the industry tell us that they are very concerned that they were not consulted. They do not feel that the level of consultation before the Bill is implemented is anything like good enough. We have to support our life sciences industry. We are very good at life sciences. It is one of the things that we can lead—and have led—the world on, but we must make sure that it is not in danger.

The other point is on access to treatments—not just drugs but other treatments. I am told by GPs that rationing is already in place, either by these referral management companies—private companies—that are being placed between the GP and his or her recommendation and the consultant, or by the consultants having pressure put on them to refuse consultation over certain patients referred to them by GPs. We already have rationing and we need to make quite sure that we are not affecting our pharmaceutical industry. We must ensure that our industries involved in research, medical implements, treatments, machines and devices and all those things that we are so good at inventing are not damaged by the Bill. It is really important that we have a statement of intent in the Bill. It will place on the Government the responsibility to make sure that they consider this terribly important sector. I have not had a chance to read the industrial strategy yet, but I would be surprised if the money follows the intent. I do not think that we will be able to look to that for any comfort, so we need this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

In discussing later amendments—in particular, from my point of view, Amendment 10—we will come back to the question of value. It seems to me that value-based pricing was not reflected in the structure of the PPRS this time round, but that it will be possible for us to do so in further revision of the PPRS in future. To that extent, the issues under Amendment 1 are very well raised. I do not personally support the structure by which it would be incorporated into the legislation, but I think it was very helpful to get that overall picture at this first stage.

[Lord Warner]

Will the noble Lord clarify something for me? The point of my amendment was, in a sense, not any particular PPR scheme but the principle of a PPR scheme, which is a negotiation between government and the industry. No one is arguing that the PPR scheme should be set in stone for ever and a day. What the industry is concerned about is that Government are getting ready to impose a system as an alternative to a negotiated system. The amendment is not meant to enshrine a particular PPRS but to encourage the idea of a negotiated deal with the sector. Does the noble Lord accept that that is a good principle?

[Lord Lansley]

The short answer is yes. We should aim for what is a price paid by the NHS to the industry for the medicines that it uses that is reflective of value and is designed to promote innovative medicines—that is, as we will discuss in a later amendment, those that meet unmet need or add substantially to therapeutic benefit and are not the “me-too” drugs that are very similar to existing medicines but have a slightly different method of operation or delivery. Paying for what innovation gives by way of therapeutic benefit is where we want to be.

However, the amendment is right in the sense that one has to do that alongside supporting the life sciences sector. That is where freedom of pricing at introduction is important. I have accepted the principle of a PPRS which delivers a budget to the NHS and delivers freedom of pricing to the industry. We are not legislating precisely for the structure of the PPRS, but let us assume that those are continuing features. However, through the operation of the rebate or some other means, it seems perfectly possible to incorporate some of the criteria that will be the subject of our discussions on a number of amendments, as is reflected in the second limb of the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I thank the noble Baroness for that point, with which I completely concur. This is obviously a big moment in time, for several reasons. Our current price regulation systems for pharmaceuticals run until the end of 2018 and, in 2019, we will leave the European Union. These things are bundled together and co-dependent; making the right decisions on each of the factors will have a knock-on effect on the rest. I very much understand the point. As I said, my job has the tension of both responsibilities, including health, and the trick is to square the circle.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response but I was not convinced and I am not sure that the industry will be convinced. Over time, the industry is seeing the legal requirement to implement NICE being watered down by NHS England in effect introducing a cost-control system on top of the legal requirement. It is seeing the Government fixated with cost rather than innovation and patient interest. Companies are seeing their investment drop and their involvement in this country being called much more into question by their boards. That is the issue. It is not about whether the Minister can convince me or this Committee; it is whether he can convince the outside world in this sector. At the moment, I am inclined to pursue this on Report, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I support these amendments, to which I have added my name. I do not want to go over again what has just been said, but the issue of access is critical. It is why companies have invested in this country. They criticised NICE when it was first set up; they were highly hostile but have been wooed over, have stayed with the game, played in it and continued to make products which are of great benefit to NHS patients. However, having jumped that hurdle they now see a new one, which is driven not by cost-effectiveness but by cost—a straightforward capping of expenditure at an arbitrary figure of £20 million. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was a little critical of NHS England. I would be if I thought that it was only NHS England but I do not believe that the Government are not behind this, putting pressure on it. We already have a massive difference of view between the Conservative chairman of the Health Select Committee and the Prime Minister over how much extra money has actually been put into the NHS. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, winces, but such measures are being introduced basically to stop the NHS carrying out a legal obligation to implement NICE recommendations. I totally support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because they are a way of trying to ensure that, where repayments are made, they go back to where they should be, which is in the NHS and helping patients to access new drugs.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

I have added my name to the first of the amendments. I would have added it to the second, but there was not room—there were already four names there. I strongly support them. The debate so far has related to the pharmaceutical industry, to pharmacies—that is, chemists in the community—and to the NHS but these amendments go to the heart of it, which is access for patients.

One problem with what will feel to a patient like almost arbitrary rationing is that they will know that they have a disease or condition and that there is a drug which, if they lived in other parts of the world or had more money, they would be able to access and which, for one reason or another, they cannot. We must recognise that any costing system for medicines is relatively arbitrary and does not cost in all the social costs of disease progression, or of more severe versus less severe forms. Nor does it factor in the cost to the whole family of the distress somebody feels when they need medication and cannot access a drug which has gone through an appraisal process and whose criteria they can see they fit.

I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at the principles behind this amendment. If you save money but do not put it back into access to medicines, you are effectively bleeding that area to plug other gaps or deficits in the NHS. As for the patient with the condition who knows that there is medication that probably would help them, although they are well aware that they could be a non-responder, no one should underestimate the anguish to them and their families, or the knock-on effect on society in the long term of failing to ensure access to effective medications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That is very interesting. It has always struck me that when you chair a board of an NHS foundation trust, for instance, there is a philosophy that says that spending on doctors and nurses is a good thing but spending on drugs is a bad thing. It is a ludicrous position. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that there is a big problem. Spending on drugs is seen as a cost pressure, so automatically everyone’s emphasis is on keeping that spending down, whereas a rather more sophisticated approach would take the view that, if you have spent your money on drugs that have had a hugely positive impact on the throughput of patients, cost-effectiveness and efficiency, that might be a good investment. The question when we come to the next group is whether our current arrangements have come to the end of the road and whether we need to move on to something rather more sophisticated.

[Lord Warner]

What we set up a long time ago was, effectively, NICE to be the arbitrator, and we controlled the flow of technology appraisals into it. I used to sign off a limited number of drugs that would go into the NICE process. We have that system, which has now been legally enshrined. It is also open to NICE to withdraw drugs from use, as it has from time to time, or to change procedures. We have a system enshrined in our law in which the NHS is required to commit to introducing NICE-approved technology appraisals, so the idea that we should let the Treasury arbitrarily reduce and control the small bit of that total NHS budget on those grounds seems bizarre. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley: we have ended up obsessing about this relatively small part of the NHS budget when we have set up a system to ensure that the NHS gets value for money through the NICE appraisal process. We are getting into a strange situation, which is why we are scrabbling around to make amendments to try to make a pretty crazy system slightly less crazy.

[Lord Lansley]

There is a risk of going on about this, but the structure of the amendment in the context of the PPRS as presently constructed is illogical, because the PPRS is constructed around budget control. The point, however—we will no doubt come back to this, not least on the next group—is that we should be thinking about how we can arrive at a negotiated price for the NHS to buy medicines which may well be marketed initially or globally at a given price, but the amount that the NHS should pay should reflect value. I have said it before and I will keep coming back to it.

I would not be as disparaging of the current consultation between NHS England and NICE at the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It could have the effect that he describes: adding additional jeopardy because one has to meet not only all the normal criteria for an effective medicine but the NICE threshold, and NHS England might step in with hobnailed boots and say, “But we are not going to make it available and you must change the funding direction”. But it might recognise reality. The consultation, in my view, may have the effect of avoiding arbitrary post hoc rationing of medicines, because the NHS should be up front, negotiating price discounts on medicines, regardless of the rebate. That means engaging with the industry at an early point.

If the industry understands the consultation properly, it will understand that the budgetary impact for the NHS under current circumstances cannot be ignored. The best way to deal with that is not to go through all these processes and then find, at the end of the day, that the NHS cannot afford it, or that NICE has to say no through the application of the threshold. Rather, it is to use the pharmaco-economic evaluation and the health technology assessment properly alongside NHS England and say: “Here is something that is valuable and we want to be able to use it, but we must recognise the budgetary impacts”. There may well therefore be some risk-sharing processes or discounting processes to enable the product to be available to the NHS at an early stage and to give industry and the NHS all the information they need subsequently to be able to make sure that they have got the pricing right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley]

The purpose of Amendment 5, in my name, is to recognise that the Government have brought forward legislation to do a necessary thing, which is to address the discontinuity between the voluntary scheme and the powers available under the statutory scheme. As such, where companies were operating under the statutory scheme with a pre-existing discounted price, often in the hospital sector, the effect of the statutory scheme imposing a given price cut did not impact on their effective price to their customers. Therefore, they did not make a contribution, in that sense, to the budgetary control that was being looked for. The purpose of the legislation is to bring equivalence to the voluntary and statutory schemes. But if we are creating equivalence between the voluntary and statutory schemes, we should be clear that the legislation does precisely that. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, quite accurately referred to this issue at Second Reading, if I recall. There are companies under the statutory scheme—Gilead is a particular example—with products that would, under the voluntary scheme, not have a PPRS control applied to their pricing because they would not contribute to the rebate as they have been introduced after December 2013. Under the statutory scheme, however, they are required to contribute.

As I understand it, the objection to bringing the two schemes to an equivalent place is that under the statutory scheme, as things stand, there are relatively few products and a significant proportion of them have been introduced since December 2013. Therefore, under the statutory scheme, the effect on the rebate of the rest of the companies would be excessive. That can be dealt with. The powers are available. If we legislate in the form that I propose, the Government can modulate the rebate between the two schemes in order to arrive at a similar result for those companies that have to contribute to the rebate and apply a common percentage. As a matter of principle, if we are legislating for the two to be equivalent, it is desirable to do so.

I am slightly worried about Amendment 3 because it assumes that there is a voluntary scheme. We do not know. There may or may not be a voluntary scheme. But a voluntary scheme will not always be in place at the point at which the Government, in order to protect the NHS, may require there to be one. I do not think that we should be in that position. There would be a flaw in the powers available to set a methodology for a rebate under a statutory scheme. In Amendment 6, which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has not yet had a chance to speak to, he clearly understands that there needs to be a relationship between these two, but I fear there is a risk of gaming on that amendment because the industry may say that if it does not agree a voluntary scheme there cannot be a statutory scheme. Therefore, there is no scheme, and I do not think that that we want to get ourselves into that position. It will not surprise the Committee that I can see reason for my own amendment even if I am not necessarily in favour of everyone else’s.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that I see excellent reasons for his amendment. If the purpose of the Bill is to achieve equivalence between the two schemes, the Bill should secure that. At the moment, it does not. The industry does not think that it does. I am not sure, technically, whether the noble Lord’s amendment secures it, but I think it does. If it is not quite right, no doubt the Government can amend it. I tabled Amendment 6 to push the Government a little more on their commitment to a voluntary scheme. That is its purpose. We have had a good canter over that particular area. As I said when we discussed Amendment 1, I was not totally convinced by the Government’s position, but I want to set out briefly why this is important.

The scheme has stood the test of time as a basis for a relationship between an industry and government where that industry has a much bigger set of customers and a much bigger presence outside the UK. We have actually punched above our weight in securing the presence of that industry in this country, partly through the NHS, but partly because a system was imposed on the industry in terms of the research-based drugs industry. There was a negotiation. Amendment 6 is not meant to say in any way that a particular type of PPRS should be enshrined in legislation for all time. It is trying to get the Government to say, clearly and unequivocally, that for the foreseeable future, there will be some form of voluntary scheme in which a negotiation takes place in an open and transparent way with this particular sector in order to keep this sector being attracted to setting up, doing research and developing pharmaceuticals for the population at large and for the NHS in particular.

Amendment 6 is trying to get out of the Government rip-roaring support for the foreseeable future, a little stronger than the Minister said earlier on, for a voluntary scheme that presents an opportunity for government and the sector to agree the basis on which they operate in a life sciences industry producing drugs that can be made available quickly and speedily, when proven, to the NHS and its patients.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, I am in favour of this group of amendments. The Government plan to introduce new regulations and duties on the industry at a very difficult time, so the Minister cannot be surprised that the industry is concerned and that parliamentarians would like to take the opportunity to hold the Government to account based on what happens after the Bill becomes an Act.

For some of the things that we have been talking about, I have been told that the Government already have powers but have not used them—they are just refining and clarifying them and making them more proportionate. Of course, that makes the industry worry that they are planning to use them, even though they are not saying so. We need to know what will happen to all these issues of availability, access, proper supply and cost to the NHS once the Bill has passed. In the interests of transparency and post-legislative scrutiny, will the Minister accept that the Government should report back to Parliament?

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 14, but I also support in principle Amendments 9 and 10A in this group. Each of these amendments does something slightly different and they need some consolidation. They are, however, a reflection of a deep sense of unease over where the Bill is taking us and a strong wish to monitor its consequences. The Government are imposing a lot of requirements on the industry for information. The quid-pro-quo is that we would like a lot more information from the Government on how this has worked in practice.

There seem to be three features that that kind of reporting back should cover. The first is the scale of payments made; the second is the use to which the money has been put; and the third is the impact of the Bill on the access to new medicines of NHS patients. It would not be right to try to draft this off the tops of our heads, but it would be helpful if the Government would accept that there should be some kind of monitoring of key issues around the Bill that are then reported back to Parliament and the public on a regular basis—let us say annually—and if we could get together with the Government to help draft something for Report in this kind of territory.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for raising the issue of reporting requirements. We will address at the end the issue of access and my sympathy to reporting requirements, but I first want to deal with the amendments as they stand.

Under the current PPRS, the Government regularly publish information relating to the operation of the voluntary scheme. Of course, for a future statutory scheme I draw attention to the regulations that we have already discussed, in which there are annual reviews of the regulations and a requirement to publish a report on each review. The illustrative regulations require an annual review that will: set out the objectives of the scheme; assess the extent that our objectives have been achieved; and assess whether those objectives remain appropriate. These requirements will be tested through the consultation on the regulations and we will, of course, take account of those views. I totally accept that reporting is a critical principle, but believe that setting out the requirements in primary legislation is too restrictive because of the potential to change from year to year what the priorities are within a sector and within the NHS.

Turning to the specifics of Amendment 9, I reassure noble Lords that the content of annual reviews would not be restricted to reviewing objectives. They must also be able to address key issues arising during the year that might affect the operation of the scheme, so there is flexibility there. We also intend for the annual review to be published and put before Parliament, so there is the opportunity for that to be seen and discussed. On the details of what it is proposed to report—in particular, how the payments are used—to achieve the specific aims of the amendment, the department would need to ring-fence the funds and monitor where the payments are used. I do not want to rehash our discussion about ring-fencing. I take seriously the point that noble Lords make about driving access to innovative drugs but we do not think this is the right way of doing it.

Nor do I believe that, through these means, it is right to address matters relating to the NHS duty to promote innovation. This Bill is ultimately about controlling the cost of medicines and medical supplies. The NHS Act 2006 puts duties on the Secretary of State to take into account both the need for medicinal products to be available for the health service on reasonable terms and the costs of research and development, which is a big factor in innovation. By taking into account these factors, the Secretary of State is looking at the needs of the industry to support the R&D base as is necessary to support the development of innovative medicines and technologies.

The NHS duty to promote innovation is different. It is about promoting innovation in the provision of health services and there is an extremely broad agenda that goes well beyond medicines. We have already said that we all want to make the UK the best place in the world to design, develop and deploy life sciences products. We do not believe that the Bill will have a negative impact on our doing so. We have also talked about the accelerated access review, so I will not go over that.

Turning to the specifics of Amendment 10A, the supply of medicines is highly complex, and pricing is one part of it. Other issues of course include rigorous safety and quality standards. Difficulties faced in the take-up or availability of medicines can be influenced by a number of reasons which are nothing to do with pricing. There can be manufacturing problems, such as batch failures; changes in guidelines, such as antibiotic switches; and raw material problems, as well as regulatory changes.

For example, in 2015, there was worldwide withdrawal of a branded antipsychotic injection, Piportil, due to a global shortage of the active pharmaceutical ingredient. Sanofi was unable to find an alternative source of this ingredient and had to discontinue the product. I set that out to illustrate the point that it is not always easy to link changes in pricing to issues of availability or access: there are other things to take into account. That is why we do not believe that we should set out, either in primary legislation or beyond the commitments made in the illustrative regulations, specifically to assess the impact on availability, access and so on.

Leaving all that aside and returning to the recurring theme of the debate, I understand the desire for greater transparency, which is undoubtedly the right approach to access. We must think about how we can improve access to innovative medicines for NHS patients and, in doing so, improve the operating conditions, if you like, for the life sciences industry—the win-win situation to which we keep returning. I would be happy to meet noble Lords either individually or collectively to think about what more we could do, whether through the Bill or looking ahead to the life sciences strategy, to ensure that we deliver on this promise. I take very seriously the warnings that many noble Lords have issued; the Government absolutely want to address this. On that basis, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I am very interested in this part and added my name to that of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in opposition to the clause. He sparked my interest by accusing me of taking through the 2006 Act. Only on further reflection with my ageing brain did I find that I had not taken it through the House when I was a Minister because it was a consolidation Act. As far as I can recall, it went through both Houses of Parliament without any direct consideration, because there were no amendments to any of the legislation covered by the Act.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in a very Sherlock Holmes manner, has been pursuing where this all came from. As far as I can see, it came from 1977, after a period in the Callaghan Government when there was great excitement about the relationship between the NHS, private practice and the private sector, following my period as private secretary to Barbara Castle. It comes from that generation. As the Minister and his officials indicated in a helpful meeting that we had, it has never been used. We are talking about a provision that comes not just from a long time ago but from a totally different context. We have Whitehall picking up a piece of legislation which it thinks may be useful and slotting it into the Bill with an amended purpose.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the medical devices sector does not think that there has been adequate consultation. It cannot understand what the Government are up to on this. The only justification it seems to have been given is that the department is modernising—whatever that means—a particular piece of old legislation. Modernisation is one of the words that one treats with a certain amount of caution, particularly when it affects public services. We are very unclear why the devices sector has attracted the attention of the Department of Health.

We are clear what the mischief is on the medicines side that the Government are trying to address. We are not clear what the mischief is on the devices side—medical supplies—that has caused the Government to go rootling around in the archives to find a bit of legislation that enables them to place a considerable requirement on the devices sector, which has been quietly minding its own business with a kitemarking system and the usual tendering processes for selling its products to the NHS.

I think we need to be a lot clearer than we are now as to why the Government need this modernising legislation. I remember that when I was a Minister one of the things I was trying to do was reduce the regulatory burden on the NHS and the health sector. I confess to having slipped up a bit in that I totally missed this 1977 regulatory burden. I wish I had spotted it, because we could have struck it out of the legislation while we were tidying up other things. Having got that off my chest and owned up to it, I would really like to know why the Government want this gold-plated provision on regulating a sector which, as far as I can see, has not caused any great problems. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why they have suddenly gone in for this attention and whether they have actually been neglectful of the sector. Has it been ripping off people a great deal for the past seven or eight years? Should we have acted sooner?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I also thank him for his consultation and willingness to meet bodies before Report, which I am sure will be very welcome. I understand the first argument, which is that there is a need to ensure consistency in relation to this Bill and the 2006 Act. I fully understand that. I also understand the change from criminal to civil penalties. But we then come to the issue of whether this provision should be in statute at all. The Minister himself has acknowledged that this is a different market, with competitive tendering. It is very competitive. We can see no evidence that this measure has been used for 40 years, and as far as I can see there is no evidence to suggest that it will be used any time soon.

The Minister said that it was not thought that the switch from branding to generics would arise in relation to medicines, and therefore that we should look into a completely different sector and say that because something might happen in the future we need to have this overarching provision in the Bill. But that is not the right approach. It has become clear that there are two courses of action. One is to take this out of the 2006 Act altogether, which at the moment I rather favour. We should not regulate for something that might happen in the mystical future.

I, too, was a better regulation Minister and it was drummed into me that if you do not need it, get rid of it—and if you do not need it, do not legislate in the first place. In his heart of hearts, surely the Minister realises that this is unnecessary. The alternative approach is to take the threshold he suggested and put it in the form of an amendment so that we have some reassurance on the face the Bill that it will not be used inappropriately. Those are two particular options.

In my tour d’horizon, as the noble Lord said, I came across the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in 1999 when my noble friend Lady Hayman was taking one of the many health service Bills through your Lordships’ House. The discussion was not about devices but about the PPR scheme, because the then Government had taken powers in relation to prices. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that the Government had,

“arrogated to themselves sweeping powers to bring the current voluntary scheme to an end and to control the price of any drug at will. Lower medicine prices are appealing but too much of that will kill the golden goose”.—[Official Report, 9/2/99; col. 118.]

If the noble Earl, Lord Howe, were here arguing for this Bill, I think that he would have reflected that the case had not been made for non-health service medicines to be involved. We need to find a way forward between this stage and Report, otherwise the persuasive argument will be to remove the offending sections from the 2006 Act.

[Lord Warner]

Perhaps the Minister will consider the Bill’s definition of “medical supplies”. It states that it,

“includes surgical, dental and optical materials and equipment (and for this purpose ‘equipment’ includes any machinery, apparatus or appliance, whether fixed or not, and any vehicle)”.

That seems to take the Government into any bits of kit—not just ordinary devices as we normally understand them. It covers ambulances and all sorts of fixed equipment in the NHS. Is the Minister really saying that the Department of Health needs a power to cover that range of subjects—I presume that it includes scanners—where competitive tendering may be used, and that the Government reserve the right to intervene in that? That is what the Bill seems to say.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

On that specific point, there are number of things—for example, supplements, cosmetics and foods—that fall outwith the categories of health service medicines or health service medical supplies but are sometimes provided or prescribed by the NHS. The intention of the part of the Bill to which noble Lords draw attention is to capture such items when they are provided by the NHS for the benefit of patients—but not in general.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, this is helpful. Medicines have been referred to, but I would have thought that it could be helpful with other medical supplies. I have had a letter from the British Healthcare Trades Association. It says, in relation to other medical supplies:

“We cannot think of any procurement scenario in our sector where products, on an ongoing basis, are not subject to tender or tariff procedures. The price is tested at entry and reviewed at regular intervals, and the terms and conditions pertaining to the contract or tariff arrangements will include requirements for provision of information”.


That deals with the issue of information. So the noble Lord has put forward a very interesting suggestion and I hope that the Minister might be sympathetic to it.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I too am sympathetic to this amendment. I have a linked amendment, Amendment 33, which is about introducing a trigger before information is required. Both amendments, I think, are intended to curb the enthusiasm of Secretaries of State to intervene in a market situation where things are working reasonably well. So I have every sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I hope that the Minister will consider it sympathetically.

[Baroness Walmsley]

I too have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment, but I just wonder what the definition would be of an “open and competitive” process—perhaps it would be defined in regulations. Does the noble Lord agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wheeler]

My Lords, this important group of amendments to Clauses 6 and 7 covering England and Wales is intended to reduce the scope of the burdensome information requirements under the Bill by excluding medical technology and supply sectors from its provisions. The Bill itself is inconsistent throughout on how it refers to this key part of the industry, variously referring to the producing of medical supplies, of health service supplies or of health service products. This gives fuel to the widespread assumption that the medical supplies parts of the Bill were a hastily drawn-up afterthought addition to its main purpose.

Our amendments in this group—excluding Amendment 19—remove all references to “health service products” in these clauses and substitute the “health services medicines” reference consistent with the other parts of the Bill applicable to the pharmaceutical industry. Despite extensive questioning and probing of Ministers by noble Lords and in the Commons and today’s explanation from the Minister in our earlier debates we have still to hear any evidence-based justification for these heavy-handed information and disclosure requirements. Both the ABPI and the ABHI have voiced strong concern at the onerous information requirements under the Bill and draft regulations and the potentially huge impact on SMEs across both sectors.

We were encouraged at Second Reading when the noble Lord, Lord Prior, in response to the widespread and deep concerns put forward, told us that,

“the last thing in the world we want to do is to build a bureaucratic edifice … or to gold-plate regulations, information requirements and the like … we are absolutely open to all ideas and suggestions on how we can reduce the regulatory and bureaucratic requirement on companies that supply the NHS”.—[Official Report, 21/12/16; col. 1685.]

Just to remind noble Lords—a point underlined earlier by my noble friend—the Bill currently requires,

“a person who manufactures, distributes or supplies any UK health service products”,

and in England it is applicable to,

“any medicinal products used to any extent for the purposes of the health service continued under”

proposed new Section 264A(1),

“and any other medical supplies, or other related products, required for the purposes of that health service”.

In other words, millions of products and thousands of small, medium, large and very large businesses.

Within Clause 6, information may be required on:

“the price charged or paid by the producer for products … the price charged or paid for delivery or other services in connection with the manufacturing, distribution or supply,”

of those products,

“the discounts or rebates or other payments given or received … in connection with the manufacturing, distribution or supply”,

of those products and,

“the revenue or profits accrued … in connection with the manufacturing, distribution or supply”,

of these products. These are the current draconian provisions and the only response so far to the Government’s insistence that they are open to ideas and suggestions is to promise to consult the medical supplies sector after the legislation has been passed.

We will not go into the issue of the dreaded Section 260 of the 2006 Act, which already contains powers to get price control and information powers over the companies concerned, but we have still to hear a convincing argument as to why it cannot be used as a basis for seeking any further information that is required. We are told that the new provisions clarify, modernise and streamline and now, in the noble Lord’s words, “make the provisions much clearer than they currently are in the 2006 Act”, but Ministers have still to explain exactly how this is the case.

To remind the Committee, the impact assessment makes the astonishing admission that the costs of these provisions have not been quantified for manufacturers, wholesalers and dispensers. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether any further work has been done on this? Surely proposals that stand to impact tens of thousands of businesses should be part of the evidence base before the Government decide to proceed with legislation? It is crucial that the Government accept our amendments and delete the medical supplies industry from the scope of Clauses 6 and 7; only then can they have the meaningful consultations with the industry that should have taken place before the introduction of the Bill. As noble Lords have underlined, it is not acceptable for Ministers to seek to change primary legislation to give the Government new information powers when the details and impact of the new powers will emerge only in future.

Finally, Amendment 19 in this group seeks to address the huge burden that the new information requirements will place on thousands of small businesses across the country. Bearing in mind that the Government have done no work on the potential impact on SMEs, this amendment would at least introduce a threshold limiting the businesses affected to those companies with a total workforce of more than 250 employees or with annual revenues of more than £50 million in each of the preceding three fiscal years prior to the information request. This is based on the EU threshold in relation to procurement. However, given our upcoming withdrawal from the EU, it seems sensible to specify a roughly equivalent amount in pounds. The value of the pound is, of course, currently subject to ongoing fluctuations. If the Government are inclined to act on this amendment, the Minister and his colleagues may wish to give some thought to an exact figure ahead of Report.

The potential impact of the proposed powers on SMEs is significant and could come with a significant unseen cost to domestic businesses and, as a result, to patients. A small firm such as Mediplus, with 55 employees and a turnover of approximately £6.5 million, already has to meet a range of requirements to demonstrate that it is providing value for money. The Bill would increase the time and cost of demonstrating compliance with regulations without any discernible improvement in final outcome. Increasing the bureaucratic burden on SMEs could force firms to consider how they bring products to market, which could have only a negative impact on the NHS and its patients.

The Government have indicated that they would exempt businesses with a turnover of approximately £5 million. The noble Lord will appreciate that, although that sum sounds large, it is very little in comparison with the revenues of the larger pharmaceutical firms which the Bill aims to regulate. The Government’s proposed exemption will still subject a company such as Mediplus to an increased regulatory burden. As noble Lords keep pointing out, all this is completely counterintuitive, given the Government’s supposed commitment to deregulation, and can only risk the viability and innovative streak of very small businesses, which we should be supporting in the current climate. I beg to move.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I have added my name to the set of amendments and strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, said.

The Minister is new to this legislation. He has joined the party a little late on the Bill. I ask him to stand back and look at some of the terminology used in it. It skips lightly through about four different terms: health service medicines, medicinal products, medical supplies and health service products. It zigzags in and out of those terms throughout the Bill. It then gives a set of definitions at the end which, on the most generous interpretation, overlap with each other. So we are imposing new obligations on a whole set of people in and around the NHS and the pharmaceutical industry without being very clear which group of products we are most concerned about. We are taking powers in the Bill to put obligations on all suppliers of those products to keep a lot of information in case the Government should at some point in future call on them to provide it. That does not seem to me a sound basis on which to legislate when we are trying to reduce the regulatory burden on not just small but medium-sized companies. We always talk about the small companies, but Amendment 19 is useful because it involves reducing the burden on medium-sized companies as well.

The impact assessment then adds to the problem by giving no idea of the impact of these provisions on those companies. At least these amendments narrow the focus to where there is an acknowledged problem—medicinal products—which is where the Bill started. If you read the Long Title, it looks as though it started as a Bill about medicines to which someone has tacked on “and related issues”, or similar words. I suspect that the Bill started off trying to deal with a genuine problem but has grown just in case it might be helpful to have some other provisions. Then, to add unnecessary complexity, it has moved around on what products are to be covered to the point where we are putting obligations on a very large number of organisations in case the Government come calling for information.

That is why I shall return to this subject when we come to Amendment 33, which tries, at the very least, to put some obligation on the Secretary of State to show that he has good reason for requiring the information sought in this Bill. That is a debate for another day, but the Minister should look very carefully at whether the Bill has a confusing set of definitions and a use of words that is going to cause a lot of confusion for the world outside.