Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-29
Topic: Health
Anne Marie Morris (Conservative, Centre-right): I shall resume my comments on amendment 2, which would remove clause 3. The argument goes that innovation has fallen in recent years owing to the legal complexities and doctors fearing a negligence claim against them if something goes wrong. There is no evidence of this, according to the Medical Protection Society, the Medical Defence Union, the General Medical Council or various other medical bodies that have spoken out on the issue. They claim that the Bill needs to be completely rethought and that no amount of amendment would make it acceptable. I would like to think that the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has done will go some way to meet the concerns expressed before Committee stage Those most likely to benefit from innovative medicine are likely to be those most in desperation. Those who have nowhere else to turn will often be allured by the carrot on the end of the proverbial stick, but we must make sure that the treatment is right for that particular person. The UK has a proud history of research through universities, research institutes, the private sector and, of course, the NHS. According to the UK Clinical Trials Gateway, there are currently 3,754 trials recruiting, and that does not include the innovation that goes on day to day in the NHS According to the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, it can take over 12 years to develop a new medicine to the standards of quality, efficacy and safety that are laid down in legislation. It will typically cost £1.15 billion to do all the research and development necessary before a new medicine can be licensed for use. For every successful medicine, 25,000 compounds are tested, 25 of these in clinical trials, with five receiving approval for marketing. The pharmaceutical industry invests more in research and development than any other industry—£11.2 million is spent every day—and employs around 23,000 people in R and D. My hon. Friend the Minister for Life Sciences stated in September last year: "Research and innovation in the NHS are critical for addressing ...challenges." I agree and therefore wholeheartedly support amendment 2 Amendment 3, which would remove clause 4, was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, with the support of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). It is important to address the legal aspects of the Bill and medical negligence. The common law test, which is the main test for medical negligence, has been around since 1957 and derives from the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee. The Bolam test states that if a doctor reaches the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion, he is not negligent. This rule has served us well over the past 55 years and I believe it will continue to serve us well. However, if it needs to be amended, our judges are in a suitable position to do that. The 1997 case of Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority, where the courts refined the Bolam test, is a great example of our common law in action. Although I am sure some will point out that the Bill does not explicitly change the Bolam test and clause 4(3) appears to address the concerns that were expressed about the Saatchi Bill, I worry that lawyers would still find a way around this. Why tempt fate to change something that is not broken? Judges and lawyers know where they stand with the common law, so maintaining the status quo will give both doctors and patients the protection they need from negligent treatment. If the removal of clause 3 is agreed to, it is right that clause 4 should also be removed as it would no longer be necessary, and the common law of negligence and the Bolam test can continue to operate effectively, as they have done for 55 years. I therefore support amendment 3.