UK Parliament / Open data

Health Bill [HL]

Proceeding contribution from Lord Patel (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 28 April 2009. It occurred during Debate on bills on Health Bill [HL].
My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments 6 and 34, and I support them both. My noble friend Lord Walton has articulated very clearly why these amendments are needed. I welcome the proposed innovation prizes, but recommend that the scope should be broadened to encourage the research that underpins innovation. I think these amendments are designed to do that. Innovation depends on research, and I know very well that the Minister is well aware of that in his own research and innovations. It is important to recognise and reward the translation of basic and clinical research into innovative ideas and products that will improve healthcare. The NHS Constitution, in its principles, enshrines a commitment both to innovation and to the promotion of conducting research. During the previous debate, there was recognition of the need to develop a stronger culture in the NHS to support research and innovation. The Cooksey review, some years ago, examined the future of health research in the UK. It emphasised the importance of removing barriers to translational research and discussed the need for "pull" incentives to encourage demand for research leading to innovation. The review concluded that there should be proper rewards for translating research into innovation in health interventions. The Cooksey review also highlighted concerns that the incentives for research to achieve an impact on health and health needs are not as strong as those to achieve academic excellence. Better incentives are needed to ensure that the best ideas are carried forward for patient benefit. Therefore, the criteria for the prizes should be developed to ensure they identify and reward early-stage research that has the potential to be transformative in an NHS setting. During the Committee debate, my noble friend Lady Murphy raised concerns about the time frame in which the success of an innovation is demonstrated. This was shown in a recent report, entitled "Medical Research: what’s it worth?", that was commissioned and independently produced by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust. It estimated that the time lag between research expenditure and eventual health benefits is around 17 years. By including research as a criterion for prizes, it becomes easier to reward innovation in its early stage. The noble Lord, Lord Darzi, during the Committee debate, stated that the awards could recognise, ""a scientific discovery that has had a huge impact on the NHS and patient care".—[Official Report, 5/3/09; col. GC 324.]" This amendment is intended to build upon that commitment by ensuring that the research and discovery process that underpins innovation is acknowledged in the Bill. I support this amendment.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

710 c149-50 

Session

2008-09

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top