House of Lords
Parliament

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath concludes the debate on the final amendment to the bill being debated at report stage today.

Lord Hunt says that he is disappointed by the government's response to the issue, and warns Lord Saatchi that is he does not address the concerns of leading medical organisations, then he risks the success of his bill becoming law.

Lord Hunt says that he will withdraw the amendment for now, but is prepared to press the issue at third reading if the issue is not properly addressed.

The bill passes report stage in the House of Lords.

House of Lords
Parliament

Lord Saatchi also speaks in favour of the proposed register of results for innovative treatments.

Lord Saatchi says that a record of results is essential for science and medicine to progress.

He says that he is satisfied with the government's response to the issue.

House of Lords
Parliament

House of Lords
Parliament

Many peers are intervening on Baroness Jolly in support of the amendment, saying that it is an incredibly important aspect of medical procedure.

Peers from across the House say that they cannot understand why the government is opposing a compulsory register of all results of medical innovation.

House of Lords
Parliament

Baroness Jolly is speaking against amendment 5 from the government frontbench.

Baroness Jolly says that the requirement to record all results of innovation on the face of the bill widens its scope too far.

She does agree that there should be a register of results, but that it should be done with a "light touch" so that it does not become a burdensome piece of bureaucracy.

House of Lords
Parliament

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Lord Kakkar both speak in support of amendment 5, which provides a necessity for both positive and negative results of innovative treatments to be recorded and published.

Both peers say that the amendment provides transparency and would also allay many of the concerns that people have with the bill.

House of Lords
Parliament

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath repeats the Opposition's sympathy and support for the aims of the bill, but says that he still finds himself "uneasy" about the "substantial body of medical opinion" who are concerned about the impact of the bill.

The amendment would create a requirement for all results of innovation - both negative and positive, to be recorded.

House of Lords
Parliament

House of Lords
Parliament

Baroness Masham of Ilton withdraws her amendment after the response of the government and Lord Saatchi.

She says that it is important for these issues to be addressed if the bill is to pass all stages in Parliament.

House of Lords
Parliament

Baroness Masham of Ilton is moving her amendment 4 to the bill.

The amendment adds a necessity for the innovating doctor to explain the medical opinions sought during the medical process to the patient.

House of Lords
Parliament

House of Lords
Parliament

Lord Turnberg also withdraws his amendment 3 relating to doctors needing the "support" of another doctor rather than just their "view".

Lord Turnberg says he is not convinced by the government's arguments, but will withdraw his amendment for now.

House of Lords
Parliament

Lord Winston raises his concerns with the government, but says that he will not divide the House on his amendments, and so the amendments are withdrawn.

House of Lords
Parliament

Lord Winston says that he is "astonished" by the government response.

He says that contrary to what Baroness Jolly had said, the current regulations do not cover the issues on which he is raising his concerns.

House of Lords
Parliament

Lord Saatchi responds to the debate on this group of amendments, and begins by saying that although he and Lord Winston do not agree on the bill, he hopes that they can reach a "happy synthesis".

Lord Saatchi says that Lord Winston's amendment 2 relating to patient safety is already covered by the bill, and is addressed by his own amendments.

Speaking to Lord Turnberg's amendment 3, Lord Saatchi argues that insisting on a second doctor's "support" rather than just their "view", would mean that formal approval was required, which could hamper the central aim of the bill.

House of Lords
Parliament

Baroness Jolly rises again to outline the government position on this group of amendments.

Speaking to the concerns for patient safety, Baroness Jolly says that "the bill does not remove any of the current safeguards in place to protect patient safety".

"There is no escape for a negligent doctor under the bill."

House of Lords
Parliament

House of Lords
Parliament

Lord Turnberg speaks to his amendment 3, which changes the requirement for a doctor who wishes to use an innovative treatment to need the support of another doctor, rather than just "seek his view", which is how the text of the bill currently stands.

House of Lords
Parliament

Baroness Gardner of Parkes opposes Lord Winston's amendment 2 relating to patient safety, saying that the bill only applies for cases in a terminal condition.

Baroness Gardner says that the amendment would "take away hope".

Mark D'Arcy
Parliamentary correspondent

Heartbreaking: @ProfRWinston describes how innovative treatments contributed to the death of his father at just 46... #SaatchiBill