My Lords, I will save my Hollywood thank-yous for the end of the process, but profound thanks will need to be said. I want to say specific thanks to those who have spoken in the debate on these amendments. There have been a large number of very thoughtful comments. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay both mentioned four nations and devolution. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, spoke on gender, my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy on industry advocacy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, on Northern Ireland. It is a very long list, and I cannot address every contribution. What I will do instead is address what I think have been the key points in the debate on these very important amendments.
Amendment 65 was tabled by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege before the Government’s own. I am extremely grateful to her and her team, who have written to me expressing their thoughts. The government amendment would not have been possible without her continued engagement and that of other noble Lords whose experience and knowledge have been essential in shaping the Government’s thinking. Although there are differences between our amendments, we are agreed on the fundamental point that we must create a patient safety commissioner in order to give the voice of patients its rightful prominence. My noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy has made that point extremely clearly and effectively.
More broadly, I hope that the amendment in my name assures my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and the House of the seriousness with which the Government takes the report First Do No Harm. The Government will continue to review this report. We made a Written Ministerial Statement on the report and its recommendations yesterday, and will respond to the whole report shortly.
A patient safety commissioner, as proposed in Amendment 65, would promote the interests of patients and other members of the public in relation to the safety of medicines and medical devices. The Government entirely agree that listening to patients is essential to preventing the sorts of issues highlighted in the report. On this, our visions for the patient safety commissioner are as one.
However, Amendment 65 in the name of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege differs in specific ways. Her proposed new subsection (2) provides that the Cabinet Office would host and fund the patient safety commissioner. My noble friend has argued here and in Committee—and, indeed, in her report—that this would be necessary to safeguard the independence of the commissioner. I simply do not agree. It is common practice for commissioners to be sponsored by the government department with relevant policy responsibility, and it is entirely unclear to me what the benefit of sponsorship elsewhere would be. The process of public appointments is set out clearly; there is no question of
undue influence by the sponsoring Secretary of State. The process is there—in fact, it is public. Nor does the identity of the sponsoring department amend or change the powers and functions of the commissioner; it is simply how the body is supported.
There are also differences in the way in which my noble friend’s intention is executed. In her report, she was clear that working with other bodies was necessary and, as I would hope, obvious as part of any commissioner’s remit. However, Amendment 65 is unclear as to how the commissioner would interact with other regulatory bodies. For example, proposed new subsection (5)(e) would allow the commissioner to receive direct reports from patients and any other persons, including regulators and the public. However, the CQC, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the MHRA, among others, are all open to receiving direct reports from patients and the public. They have a responsibility to listen to complainants. These bodies also have their own routes for reporting. For example, as we know from the vaccines rollout, adverse incidents relating to medicines and medical devices are reported through the MHRA’s yellow card scheme.
Without differentiation between taking receipt of direct reports to further a broader investigation and acting as an ombudsman, Amendment 65 might create a body overwhelmed by patient reporting and investigating individual cases. The noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Hunt, both referred to past agencies here, but where the best route to resolution sits elsewhere. The report itself said that the commissioner should not investigate individual cases, yet this boundary is absent from the amendment.
Proposed new subsection (7) enables the commissioner to require information from public bodies and others for the purposes of producing and laying before Parliament reports regarding patient safety, but “other” would extend to private individuals—a very expansive group indeed. The amendment tabled by my noble friend provides for the commissioner to make reports only to the Secretary of State and Parliament, and not to a range of bodies as in the government amendment. Nor does my noble friend’s amendment provide for what would happen if these individuals did not respond.
“Relevant person” is a broad definition. I am confident that it will enable the commissioner to engage with the organisations necessary to fulfil their functions effectively. In addition, proposed new paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule A1 would enable the commissioner to receive information from and consult
“any other person the Commissioner thinks appropriate”.
This provides the commissioner with all the relevant tools necessary. A vital difference between my amendment and the proposals of my noble friend is that, in mine, provisions are made for the patient safety commissioner to make reports and recommendations to relevant public authorities or persons, and for that authority or person to have a duty to respond to these; I think that is vital.
3.15 pm
We have listened, and made substantial changes in this area since Second Reading, so I signal to my noble friend that I do not anticipate debating any amendments at Third Reading.
My noble friend has raised the issue as to whether the words “reasonably practicable” are a fetter on the commissioner, saying that they might prevent the commissioner obtaining information. To this I would say that the language used in our amendment is exactly—or almost exactly—as it is for the Children’s Commissioner and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. They are no different. “So far as reasonably practicable” provides for circumstances where a body is asked for information it simply does not hold, or, say, information is requested to be sent via email when the information held cannot be transferred from one IT system to another. Without the words “so far as reasonably practicable” there is no means to be compliant. It is fair to have that language in there. Such language reflects that the commissioner may ask for the impossible or the undeliverable, but it is not a shut door. We would expect that a refusal on the basis that it is not reasonably practicable to comply would open up a dialogue on what was practicable.
However, the commissioner is armed with tools for additional action if met with non-compliance. The commissioner could, for example, bring that non-compliance to the attention of the body’s regulator, the Secretary of State or Parliament. In a system that can sometimes seem crowded, it is essential that each organisation is able to work in a way that is complementary, so that the system becomes greater than the sum of its parts.
I hope my noble friend can acknowledge that we differ here on very few matters. We discussed this in Committee and had conversations after that. The Government’s position on this has not changed and our view will not change between now and Third Reading. I therefore hope that my noble friend will not feel that she has to push her amendment. If she wishes to test the opinion of the House, she should do so now.