Claim: the Ireland/NI Protocol is “starving NI of medicines”. A very serious claim, if true. But it isn’t. Thread: and trigger warning - contains nuance and detail.
Start with some basics. Article 5.4 of and para 20 of Annex 2 to the NIP apply all EU legislation on medicines to NI. That provision overrides Article 7.1 NIP (U.K. law to govern what goes on market in NI) as Art 7.1 is subject to Annex 2.
Arts 7.3, 12 and 13 together have the result that the MHRA operates in NI in broadly the same way as the national competent authorities of EU member states do in theirs. Eg it can approve medicines in NI under EU law where national authorities can do so in the EU (most medicines)
It does so in accordance with EU law and subject to Commission and ECJ supervision.
The effect is also that (as a starting point) medicines flow freely into NI from the EU (in particular, obviously, 🇮🇪) but medicines coming in from GB are treated as coming from a third country.
Under the TCA, GB inspections and certificates of good manufacturing practice are acceptable in the EU and hence in NI. So that’s one barrier to GB-NI trade in medicines overcome. But there are others.
The problem here is that traditionally most medicines supplied to NI (even from elsewhere in the EU) have come through GB.
Post-Brexit, imports into the EU and NI from GB are third-country. That means (in particular) they have to be batch tested by a Qualified Person based in the EU or NI, and imported by someone holding the necessary permits (not many do in NI).
Problems are also caused by the EU regime of unique identifiers placed on medicines in the fight against falsified medicines.
In 2020 Commission issued a notice that made derogations from these requirements for products routed from the EU through, or coming from, GB. This dealt with many of these problems on a temporary basis - to end 2021.
There are also serious warehousing shortage issues in NI, which doesn’t help.
In late 2020 the Commission extended the 2020 notice. It also proposed further legislation, which is now proceeding through the EU system.
That legislation will allow the MHRA to authorise, in NI, those medicines (eg cancer treatments, biotech medicines, and antivirals including vaccines) that normally in the EU are reserved to the EMA.
So if a cancer drug or Covid vaccine is authorised in GB but not in the EU, NI can get it, for 6 months.
And ditto (though permanently in this case) if authorised in the EU but not GB: best of both worlds.
The “unique identifier” problem is also dealt with by a 3-year derogation.
That is the summary of a complex picture. GB-NI supply has been made harder and pricier. But many of the problems have been ameliorated/addressed.
The claim that the NIP is “starving” NI of medicines is therefore (at best) wildly overblown. It is also an irresponsible claim from any legislator who takes his responsibilities seriously.
Given the history, all politicians have a duty to use words carefully when talking about NI. And there is, after all, a real history of Ireland being starved by government policy - and it wasn’t the EU that was responsible.
(And - of course - all of these problems leapt out of the text of the NIP, as agreed by the current government as part of the deal that it then enthusiastically sold to voters. As anyone who knows about the regime could have, and doubtless did, tell Ministers at the time.)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with George Peretz QC

George Peretz QC Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GeorgePeretzQC

Feb 11
As is clear from my timeline, I don’t often agree with Lord Moylan: but I do (subject to using slightly different language every now and then) very much agree with him on this.
It is deeply unsatisfactory that we have ended up in a situation where there is a second class of citizens whose citizenship can be removed at the wide discretion of the Home Secretary.
It is also wrong that people with a right to citizenship (or, I’d add, anyone who wants to be naturalised) has to pay extraordinarily high fees - effectively a tax - to register or apply.
Read 5 tweets
Feb 9
Good piece illustrating the trade-offs involved in getting rid of retained EU law in the shape of complex regulatory regimes. 2 points.
1. These are really important and difficult policy choices. These should be made by primary legislation, scrutinised by Parliament, with those affected given a chance to be heard. Not by barely-scrutinised flicks of a Minister’s pen.
2. One other problem with the unilateral “we’ll let in products approved by countries we trust” options floated by Sam is loss of U.K. regulatory capacity and accountability. That matters when things go wrong: which, in this area, they can - very badly. Remember breast implants.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 9
Late to this by @alexinlaw and @john_vassiliou1: Home Office dictionary. freemovement.org.uk/joke-home-offi…
If you think that that’s making it up, try freemovement.org.uk/10-of-the-most…
One pillar of the case for judicial review and scrutiny is that, left unchecked, all bureaucracies administering complex systems with real impact on lives will tend to this cocktail of poor decision-making, unfairness and cruelty.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 8
And this is why scrutiny and accountability are critical, and why it isn’t either democratic *or* conducive to good regulation to give Ministers wide powers to change retained EU law by the flick of a pen.
The idea that *no* regulatory improvement of EU law is possible outside the EU can’t be maintained (see the CAP).
Read 4 tweets
Feb 5
Johnson’s claim on Monday. Image
(A) total crime *rose* by 14% if fraud and computer misuse are included “as they should be”.
Read 6 tweets
Feb 2
It is not perhaps the ideal time (🇺🇦/🇷🇺) for a UK government to be demonstrating a cavalier attitude to its international obligations.
As for the idea that this is a matter for the NI executive: (1) that is irrelevant as a matter of international law (assuming that the current government accepts that NI is part of the U.K.); and
(2) s.26 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 gives it all the powers the current government needs to intervene. Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

:(