Health and Social Care Bill

My Lords, my reaction is, ““C+: Must work harder””. The noble Baroness has given some reassurances but they are certainly not sufficient. She should have a lengthy chat with her noble friend Lady Cumberlege on the MHRA. I would be happy to join them as it is an interesting model and has a lot to offer. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, may remember the Cadbury inquiry’s report on the governance of companies in which it advised that there should be a separate chairman and chief executive. Therefore, the principle of promoting good governance through having a separate chairman and chief executive is well established in both the public and the private sector. She might think about that a bit more. I do not know about other noble Lords but I was not swept off my feet by the assurances on research. We would like some good assurances in writing, particularly with regard to the ability of the new body to compete for MRC research funds. I continue to have concerns about the ability of any body in this position to publish peer-reviewed articles and findings from research that are uncensored. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Once a body is inside the Civil Service code, the ability to publish independent utterances and research tends to become a bit more circumscribed. Therefore, we want further assurances in that regard. I will want to discuss with my colleagues whether we will come back to this issue on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 257ZA withdrawn. Clause 53 agreed. Schedule 7 agreed. Clause 54 : Functions in relation to biological substances Amendments 257A and 257B Clause 54 : Functions in relation to biological substances Amendments 257A and 257B Moved by