I am grateful to my noble friend for his interesting response. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I want to take it away and think about it. I probably felt kind of comfortable with what my noble friend said in relation to branded medicine. I thought it was specifically in relation to unbranded generic medicines that the issue was, perhaps, most likely to arise. However, I can see that he is identifying circumstances where there might be a tender process, and that the fact of it being a tender does not necessarily mean that it is open and competitive on price. I therefore see why the amendment does not do the job. However, I can still see where there might be a risk, none the less. There might be open and competitive tender situations where the companies concerned feel that they are in subsequent jeopardy that the price that has been determined competitively might be overridden by the powers that are available to Ministers. We just need to see whether, perhaps in further discussion, we can find some way to give companies an assurance that that would not be the case, whether statutorily or otherwise. I would very much value my noble friend’s assurance that we will have that conversation. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Lansley
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 23 January 2017.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
778 c89GC Session
2016-17Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2021-10-12 15:12:08 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-01-23/1701242000277
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-01-23/1701242000277
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-01-23/1701242000277