London-based body must leave UK post-Brexit, but staff survey suggests eight of 19 proposed sites are so unsuitable that move could create ‘public health crisis’

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has warned that the damage caused by its relocation from London would at best take two years to fix and at worst lead to its complete breakdown and a major public health crisis for the continent.

A survey by the EMA asked staff to give their thoughts on the 19 candidate cities that applied to host the health agency after Britain’s withdrawal from the EU in March 2019.

The candidates range from Dublin, Amsterdam and Stockholm, which are among the favourites, to Bucharest, Warsaw and Zagreb, which are regarded as outsiders.

The results revealed that, in the case of the eight least popular possible new locations, staff retention rates could be significantly lower than 30% and as low as 6% in the case of one of the unnamed cities.

The EMA said a move to any of these cities would mean it could no longer operate, ensuring no new medicines could be authorised. The EU would have to rely on medicines imported and approved from companies and agencies in countries such as Japan and the US.

A report from the EMA suggested that such a “public health crisis” would mean “permanent damage” to the European system and that patients would be exposed to side-effects including “deaths [and] litigation”.



The best-case scenario – if one of the five candidate cities most popular with staff were chosen – would still be worse than the status quo, with staff retention, depending on the city, between 65% and 81%, leading to possible delays to the approval of new medicines.

“Progress on a number of public health initiatives (eg support to initiatives on antimicrobial resistance and for the elderly, cooperation with health technology assessment bodies) will move at a slower pace,” the EMA said, adding that it would take two to three years for the agency to recover.

For the potential hosts ranked sixth to 10th, only 51% to 60% of staff would be retained, resulting in delays to new medicines, an erosion in public trust and potentially the loss of Europe’s cutting edge in scientific research.

In the case of one candidate city, which scored a likely staff retention rate of 48%, there would be a serious risk of delays to medicines, a possible shortage of lifesaving medicines and a breakdown in cooperation within the EU, leading to inequality of outcomes for citizens. It would take five to 10 years for the agency to recover in this scenario.

A statement from the EMA said: “The results of the survey emphasise the importance of the upcoming decision on the EMA’s future seat, as the retention of skilled and experienced staff is crucial for the agency’s continuity of operations.



“The outcome that was shared with staff earlier this month revealed that for certain locations staff retention rates could be significantly less than 30%. This would mean that the agency is no longer able to function and, as there is no backup, this would have important consequences for public health in the EU.



“Some staff losses can be absorbed with EMA’s business continuity plan, but beyond a critical threshold the agency will no longer be able to fulfil its mandate to protect the health of European citizens.”

EU leaders will discuss the competition for the EMA and the European Banking Authority, which is also located in London, in October. There will be a “Eurovision-style” vote by ministers in November.

Each EU member state can give three votes for its first preference, two for the second and one for its third. Any bid securing three points from 14 or more member states will be declared the winner.

If the threshold is not met, there will be a second round for the top three cities. Each country gets one vote. If there is still no winner at this stage, there will be a knockout between the two final candidates.

Six countries have made bids for both agencies, but they can be awarded only one body.