Commons Sense

House of Commons · Westminster Hall

Procurement of Evusheld

12 October 2022 · 12 other contributors · 4,366 words

Opened by Daisy Cooper Lib Dem St Albans

Responding minister: Robert Jenrick

NHS

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Daisy Cooper raised concerns about procurement of evusheld in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.

Key points

  • Government decision not to approve Evusheld leaves thousands of immunocompromised individuals vulnerable.
  • Thirty-three countries, including every G7 member except the UK, have approved Evusheld for use.
  • Minister acknowledges the distress of immunosuppressed individuals but does not commit to procuring Evusheld.

Key requests to Government

I urge Ministers to listen carefully to today's debate and urgently set out plans to support immunosuppressed patients by approving the use of Evusheld without further delay. The Government should urgently procure Evusheld for the upcoming winter season and distribute it without further delay. Ministers must explain why they have treated Evusheld inconsistently compared to other treatments and vaccines.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Daisy Cooper Lib Dem St Albans

I am concerned about the impact of the Government's decision not to approve Evusheld for use, which leaves thousands of immunocompromised individuals vulnerable during the approaching autumn and winter. My constituent, a 26-year-old who has been shielding for over two years, highlights the urgent need for this treatment. The debate underscores that 33 other countries have approved Evusheld, including every G7 member apart from the UK. The Government's failure to procure and distribute the preventive covid-19 drug Evusheld is leaving over half a million immunocompromised patients in England in an extremely vulnerable position. The evidence supporting the use of Evusheld is strong, with real-world data showing its effectiveness. However, recent reports by the RAPID C-19 group have led to inconsistent government decisions regarding procurement and distribution, causing significant distress among those who need it most. Patients are facing a third winter of shielding, which impacts both their physical and mental health.

Other contributors (12)
  • Andrew Selous Con Dover

    I share the hon. Lady's passion for this issue and stress that decisions should be taken through rigorous scientific methods rather than political influence.

  • Ben Lake PC Ceredigion Preseli

    Ben Lake welcomed an accelerated timetable if possible, highlighting the reliance on RAPID C-19 advice by devolved Governments and congratulating the Minister on that development.

  • Caroline Ansell Con Taunton Deane

    On behalf of half a million people and a constituent in her constituency, Caroline Ansell asked the Minister to clarify what risks outweigh the benefits of deploying Evusheld at this point.

  • Catherine McKinnell Lab Newcastle upon Tyne North

    I congratulate Daisy Cooper on securing this debate, highlighting the urgency of supporting immunosuppressed individuals during winter. I have been contacted by a constituent concerned about increased vulnerability.

  • Dan Jarvis Lab Barnsley North

    I agree with Daisy Cooper's powerful case and highlight Max Johnson, a 14-year-old heart transplant recipient, who has been isolated since the start of the pandemic. We must allow access to Evusheld without delay.

  • Henry Smith Con Crawley

    I note that 33 countries have approved Evusheld, including every G7 member except the UK. We should learn from their experiences in approving this treatment for immunocompromised individuals.

  • John Glen Con Salisbury

    My constituent Helen Nash supports the hon. Lady's case and points out that while vaccines were accelerated for the general population, immunocompromised individuals face different criteria.

  • Lisa Cameron SNP East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow

    I thank Daisy Cooper for bringing forward this debate, stressing that lack of access to Evusheld not only impacts physical health but also mental wellbeing.

  • Luke Evans Con Hinckley and Bosworth

    Luke Evans agreed with the need for clinically robust evidence but questioned whether there is anything that can be done to speed up decision-making regarding regulation of Evusheld.

  • Mark Logan Con Coastal West Sussex

    I support Daisy Cooper's sentiments and highlight that the Government must continue to seriously consider Evusheld for clinically vulnerable people across the UK.

  • Mike Penning Con Hemel Hempstead

    I question why there is a discrepancy between government scientists' advice on Evusheld and that of other scientific communities, despite the RAPID C-19 committee having reviewed it 11 times.

  • Vicky Foxcroft Lab Lewisham North

    Vicky Foxcroft inquired about the use of vaccines not tested against omicron while using Evusheld's lack of testing as an excuse for those who are immunocompromised.

Government Response

Robert Jenrick

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I thank the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) for securing the debate and acknowledge her work in raising awareness about the concerns of immunosuppressed individuals regarding Evusheld. As the Minister who established the shielding programme in spring 2020, I understand the distress and psychological harm that living a cloistered life places on people and their loved ones. The Government's approach has been to make decisions based on available evidence and medical expert recommendations. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) gave conditional marketing authorisation to Evusheld in March 2022, noting a lack of data regarding its response to the omicron variant. This was also noted by other respected regulatory authorities such as the European Medicines Agency and the FDA. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) assesses the clinical and cost-effectiveness of drugs. NICE's process is due to conclude in April next year, but I met its chief executive to seek reassurances that the work could proceed at a faster pace. Additionally, RAPID C-19 was established in 2020 as a multi-agency initiative to expedite processes for treatments like Evusheld. Three types of evidence have been considered: clinical trial data (generally the strongest source), in vitro neutralisation studies showing reduced binding with different omicron variants, and published clinical experience from the US and Israel. These show uncertainties about efficacy against omicron, leading to a proposed urgent trial to inform NICE's decision ahead of April 2023. Other countries have introduced Evusheld at increased doses to counter its reduced ability to neutralise omicron, but our experts consider this insufficient evidence for deployment. The Government recognises the value of an effective pre-exposure programme but supports clinical trials to answer outstanding questions on dose, efficacy, and duration of protection against variants. We have had great success in generating evidence from clinical trials; NHS patients often receive safe and effective treatments earliest in the world. I will continue working with expert advisers to review emerging evidence swiftly while ensuring safety and efficacy for public confidence.

Get updates like this by email
▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy