| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. McCartney : I shall make my own speech in my own time, thank you.
Mr. Waterson : I thought I would give the hon. Member the opportunity.
Mr. Radice : I shall say something about the Americans later.
Column 1310
Mr. Waterson : The clause also makes it clear that final decisions about what information should be disclosed will rest with Ministers. We should not create a whole new area of expenditure on legal costs by allowing interminable challenges and appeals in the courts. I say that as a lawyer. At the end of the day, we pay Ministers to make decisions. When companies have said what information should or should not be made public, it is entirely appropriate that the final decision should be taken by Ministers.
I have included a provision that information should not be protected if it has already been published in the United Kingdom. It would be ludicrous if the Bill prevented Ministers from disclosing information, even if it had been published in full in a national newspaper.
New clause 4 is a genuine attempt to improve the Bill and to make it more workable and more reasonable. Above all, it will protect the sort of unwanted and unintentional damage that could be done by the Bill. I commend the new clause to the House and hope that I have explained its intention.
Mr. Radice : Mr. Morris, Mr. Deputy Speaker--I apologise for calling you Mr. Morris ; it is too much of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. New clause 4 goes to the heart of the debate between the Government, those who support the Bill--they are in the majority, especially on a free vote--and the industry because it raises the issue of confidentiality and commercial secrets. They are legitimate concerns of the industry which we have been trying to meet and deal with throughout the passage of the Bill.
Let us look at new clause 4 against the background of our deletion of clauses 4 and 5 in Committee. Clause 4 is fairly tightly defined and excludes all legitimate areas of commercial secrets and, taking into account my amendments Nos. 104 and 105, the new clause is unnecessary.
The Bill has considerable all-party support--it was sponsored by hon. Members from all parties--and it could not have got through the Committee without the support of Conservative Members. There were certain moments in Committee when the only Conservative Member who voted against a specific amendment or clause was the Minister. It was rightly thought that I tried to meet most of the legitimate concerns expressed. I have studied the Division records and I know that the majority of Conservative Members came out in support for the Bill. I accept that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) may have abstained on most votes, but he gave us his support on one occasion. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) certainly gave the Bill valuable and useful support throughout the Committee. I wish to make it clear, therefore, that the Bill would not have reached the House today without the support of Conservative Members. It is an all-party Bill, with all-party support.
1.30 pm
I made it clear on Second Reading, which was unopposed, that I should be happy to talk to representatives of the industry about any of its concerns. Before and after the Committee stage, I met representatives of the British Pharma Group, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, Upjohns, Schwering and the National Office of Animal Health--NOAH. I have
Column 1311
taken a constructive and responsible attitude throughout the passage of the Bill and I do not believe that anyone could pretend otherwise.I know that the briefing that has been supplied by the Government to hon. Members, which I was fortunate to glance at, claims that the American Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association expressed its opposition to the Bill in a letter to the Secretary of State for Health, which is quoted in that briefing. That letter was written before the Committee stage and its attack was based on clauses 4 and 5, which have now been deleted. I do not want that argument to be used against the Bill in its present form.
Hon. Members should note that since the Committee stage a number of people have come out in support of the Bill, including Sir William Asscher, the distinguished former chairman of the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, which advises the licensing authority. NOAH, which speaks for the veterinary medicines industry, has also placed on record its support for the Bill, as amended.
It is true that the British Pharma Group has displayed considerable ambivalence to the Bill. It said that it could live with clauses 2 and 3 if the original clauses 4 and 5 were deleted. Now that that has happened, however, it is still doubtful about the Bill. It believes that we should wait for European legislation--it wants to be virtuous, but not yet, Lord. The same is probably true of the ABPI. It accepts that there must be legislation along the lines of the Bill, but not just yet. Why should those organisations be frightened of it? There has been much talk about the United States. We were fortunate enough to have a representative of the Food and Drug Administration at a meeting yesterday in the House of Commons in support of the Bill. It was clear, first, that our model was the same as theirs. It was also clear that the American industry has gained considerable advances, not in finding out rivals' commercial secrets--an old canard--but in discovering factors such as adverse drug reactions and how the summary basis of approval should be approached. Such information is extr, in the United States, the Freedom of Information Act is the great panacea for all problems and grants freedom to all. However, the United States Government can refuse to disclose information that would harm the privacy of an individual or the proprietary interests of a business. Such provision goes much wider than mere trade secrets. They can release information generated through Government agencies.
Mr. Radice : They release the summary basis of approval, which is the main aim of my Bill. In some respects, they reveal more than we do. They reveal the raw material of the adverse drug reactions, whereas we are merely suggesting that we should reveal a summary, and we have talked to the industry about that. Therefore, the American model is in advance of the model proposed in the Bill.
Mr. Spring : Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the FDA has a relationship with individual drug companies, and the onus is on the drug companies to decide what information they should supply and on what basis they should protect their own commercial interests. The onus is on the pharmaceutical companies to decide
Column 1312
which information they regard as important for their own commercial survival. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is not accurately representing the relationship between the FDA and private pharmaceutical companies.Mr. Radice : I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the tightly defined list, both with the FDA and in the Bill, of matters that can be revealed. It does not cover commercial interests, which are specifically excluded under clause 4. I suggest that one or two hon. Members may not be sufficiently familiar with the Bill. I do not blame them for that, as they were not present in Committee and may have been alerted to the contents of the Bill only recently.
Mr. Waterson : I was not a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill as I was engaged in discussing a major piece of legislation in another Standing Committee, but I have carefully read the Committee proceedings. That was not an arduous task as the Committee sat only twice and on each occasion rose well before 1 pm. Therefore, I feel that I know as much about the Committee stage as any of the members of the Committee.
Mr. Radice : I am glad that the hon. Member read our deliberations--
Mr. McCartney : There was agreement.
Mr. Radice : As my hon. Friend said, there was considerable agreement--with the exception of the Minister--in Committee, which was the good thing about it.
Mr. Wells : Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly how many Conservative Members supported the Bill? As I understand the Bill, only one of our number supported it, and it seems to be slightly misleading to say that the Bill has all-party support.
Mr. Radice : As the hon. Gentleman knows, Standing Committees must have a Conservative majority. I had the support of the majority of the Conservatives on the Committee for the clauses that were amended--I did not have the Minister's support, however, or the support of the hon. Member for Beckenham who, as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, had to abstain. The hon. Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) supported me. True, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) had a prior engagement in the United States. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam supported us. I was surprised that even the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) started to support us towards the end--perhaps he has been told to. The hon. Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Havant (Mr. Willetts) supported us, too. It can be seen that I invited quite a lot of distinguished Conservative Members to serve on the Committee. The Bill's promoter does not, of course, do the selecting, but he has to suggest names. I suggested those names, with the results that I have described. I hope therefore that no one will say that the Bill does not have considerable support.
Mr. Piers Merchant (Beckenham) : I do not want to pursue the point too far, but I feel that the hon. Gentleman is glossing over the degree of the differences between us. He is in danger of muddling two separate arguments--one about the principle, the other about the practical applications of the Bill. Although there is widespread
Column 1313
support for and agreement with the principle and objective of the Bill, there have been many disagreements about certain aspects of the Bill--hence the amendments in Committee and on Report. To try to give the impression that everyone supports everything in the Bill is somewhat disingenuous.Mr. Radice : I note the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I think that he will retain his position as a PPS having made them.
I do not want to be accused of filibustering on my own bill, so I conclude by dealing with two issues, before I turn to the Government's position. I have with me a letter written and signed this morning by Mr. Bangemann, who was asked by the chairman of the European Parliament's committee on the environment for a view on how the Bill fits in with European legislation. The letter states : "I would like to confirm that under the existing Community directives, an assessment report written in view of granting a marketing authorition, and reasons for such decisions, may be disclosed by the competent national authority who established the report, provided it does not contain commercially confidential information.
Such a possibility of disclosure is not affected by the proposal to introduce a decentralised marketing authorisation system (amendment of directive 75/319. SYN 310).
Furthermore, it would be consistent with the Community's policy on transparency since there is already unanimous agreement in council on the proposed regulation for the centralised authorisation (SYN 300), which states, in its Article 12 &4 :
4. Upon request from any interested person, the Agency shall make available the evaluation report of the medicinal product by the Committee for proprietary medicinal products and the reasons for its opinion in favour granting authorization, after deletion of any information of a commercially confidential nature'."
The Bill is in line with what is happening in Europe.
The British industry, with no hard evidence for saying so, claims that in some curious way it will be labouring under a great disadvantage in Europe if we have an open licensing system in this country. That ignores the fact that under the decentralised system, before any product is licensed in this country, it will have to go through our own licensing processes. It is not just a question of accepting on the nod whatever comes from other licensing authorities in the European Community. For example, it is open to our licensing authority to challenge what has been licensed in another country, and we can also make public the basis on which licences have been granted in other countries. That is never said by those who use the European argument, so let us not hear so much of that argument. The Government say that they want to be at the heart of Europe, so it is about time that they took a lead on something in Europe. They could do that on this issue.
That brings me to the Government's position. One of the features of the debate has been the Government's change of heart. Before Second Reading, they said that they would give the Bill a fair wind. On Second Reading, the Minister said that he was in favour of the Bill's principle, that he was against unnecessary secrecy and that there were objections to section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968. However, in Committee I realised, as did all hon. Members, that there had been a change of heart. The Minister who is responsible for promoting open government, the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) had clearly lost the argument.
Column 1314
1.45 pmThe Department of Health is the sponsoring Department for the drugs industry, and it is also in charge of the nation's health and is responsible for looking after patients. There is a possible contradiction there because at times conflicts can arise. At any rate, that Department has other fish to fry, and they were mentioned in the debate. They are the issues of cost and the limited list. It looks as though the Government, to get the industry's support, decided to change their position on my Bill and the idea of the licensing authority being more open. The 113 amendments are a clear attempt to wreck the Bill by talking it out. I therefore accuse the Government of double dealing over the Bill and of collusion with the industry. They are also reneging on their open government commitments. The Bill will be talked out at 2.30, but that will not be the end of the argument or the process. It will be the beginning.
Mr. Merchant : The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) played with my intervention a little, but I do not criticise him for doing that. However, my intervention was crucial to the debate on the Bill and the new clause. I drew a distinction between the Bill's principle and its practical application and the other effects that it might have on the pharmaceutical industry and elsewhere.
I have made it clear from the beginning that I strongly support the Bill's principle, but I have little doubt that the hon. Gentleman's final forecast will come to pass. In the fullness of time there will be legislation to alter section 118, which is clearly anachronistic and out of step with the Government's avowed intention to make information more freely available and to encourage open government. I have always been strongly wedded to both principles.
The scope, timing and detail of the Bill raise difficulties. I agree with some of what the hon. Member for Durham, North said, and I have some reservations about the new clause. It is difficult to achieve the right balance and work out exactly where the pharmaceutical industry stands. Since before Second Reading, despite playing an active role, I have received no indication of the industry's stand. Nor have I received an approach from a major pharmaceutical company based in my constituency. I find it slightly strange, but that is a matter for the company concerned. That does not help me in trying to ascertain the industry's position. The pharmaceutical industry is important and beneficial to this country, so it is vital not to do anything that would harm it or restrict its competitiveness. I am sure that the hon. Member for Durham, North agrees.
Mr. Knapman : Would that the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) had adopted that view. He quoted my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State saying that the Government did not object to the principle of the Bill. It might have been fairer if the hon. Gentleman had quoted also the following comment by my hon. Friend the Minister. He said :
"These are difficult times for all manufacturers, and I am concerned that at a time when we are determined to reduce the burden that Government place upon industry, the Bill could increase them." Although my hon. Friend accepted the principle, he made it perfectly clear that he had many objections on matters of detail.
Mr. Merchant : My hon. Friend emphasises the impact of the legislation on the pharmaceutical industry alongside
Column 1315
other matters affecting it. My hon. Friend the Minister must bear the burden of those decisions. He had a difficult time doing so in Committee. On one occasion, when he seemed to be voting on his own, I felt sorry for him and therefore joined him on two occasions. The other reason, which is more important from the industry's point of view, was the Bill's impact on the industry at this time. The industry is facing other regulations and the effects of national and European bureaucracy. The hon. Member for Durham, North seemed almost to be scoffing at the agreements that must be reached on the limited list. He seemed to suggest at least that that should not influence the Bill. Right hon. and hon. Members are practical men and realise that all aspects of Government policy will work together, have an impact on each other, and affect the industry. The industry should not be expected to bear too heavy a burden in one go at this time.The burdens are many. They include controls on labelling and quality that are much more rigid than in most other industries. There is the impact of European legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said what would happen if the social chapter were adopted. I referred to the limited list. All are aspects of intervention in an industry that is and must remain competitive in world terms. It is important to take those factors into account, and I make no apology for doing so--and my hon. Friend the Minister should do the same.
Mr. Spring : I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's point about the principle of openness, which the Government and other right hon. and hon. Members would endorse in many areas. However, can one imagine the French Government allowing their pharmaceutical industry to be disadvantaged in any way? We are seeing the potential for an EEC-wide licensing authority. That will be the moment, on a pan-European basis, for greater openness. If it were to happen unilaterally, it would be costly and difficult for the pharmaceutical industry, employment, our trade balance, and other considerations that are so serious for the future of the industry and of employment in this country.
Mr. Merchant : The future of EEC regulation in this specific area should be added to my list. The negotiations and discussions that will have to be carried out in advance of the regulation coming into effect are crucial and should not be obscured by the House of Commons making decisions that will have a deleterious impact.
Mr. Knapman : I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) is about the only hon. Member who cannot wait for Dr. Bangemann to bring forward proposals in this respect.
Mr. Merchant : I hope that the hon. Member for Durham, North does not have an unhealthy relationship with Dr. Bangemann.
Mr. Radice : It is not a question of having an unhealthy relationship with Dr. Bangemann. However, he is the Commissioner for the industries involved. He may be a figure of fun to some Conservative Members, but, if one is concerned about finding out what is going on in the
Column 1316
European Community, it is only sensible to talk to his office and his department and then to talk to the European Parliament.Mr. Merchant : Yes. I thought that that, in a sense, was what we were arguing about. I hasten to add that I was inferring only an unhealthy intellectual relationship with Dr. Bangemann. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that it is sensible to discuss these matters with Dr. Bangeman, his office and others, but that, surely, is an argument for proceeding with some caution with the Bill. I do not want to overdo the point. I merely say that it is an element which we should take into account in our discussion of the Bill. I am concerned about the reference in subsection (1) (b) to animal testing, a very contentious issue upon which I have strong feelings. It is a matter of great concern throughout the country. We have to be careful about being unduly restrictive regarding the amount of information that, rightly, should come into the public domain. In the vast majority of cases, the place at which testing is carried out will be known anyway. That information is widely disseminated and is reasonably easily found out by the pressure groups involved. I see nothing wrong in that.
Mr. Waterson : I appreciate the strength of my hon. Friend's views, but does he agree that revelation of the place where experiments or tests are carried out has nothing to do with the contents of this Bill ? That may be a matter for another Bill, but it does not legitimately come within the scope of this Bill.
Mr. Merchant : That is precisely why I question this provision. I do not understand why it has been included in new clause 4.
Mr. Couchman : That point has been made consistently to me throughout the proceedings on the Bill. Both the location of establishments where animal testing takes place and, particularly, the names of the people involved in the testing are matters that the industry regards as being of the highest importance. My hon. Friend knows well the major centre in his constituency where animal testing takes place. I am aware of others where it takes place. The attentions of the animal liberationists have given rise to the most elaborate security precautions having to be introduced in places where research should take place in a more free and happy atmosphere.
Mr. Merchant : It is also a matter of concern to the general public. I am not talking specifically about individual pressure groups. Research involving animals is an important aspect of the law to be upheld. There have been recent examples of abuse where the law was slow to enforce and to correct what should not have happened in the first place. I therefore view with some concern anything that would hinder the flow of such information, although I accept that there must be some controls on freedom of information in this area, especially on patents, competition and other trade secrets. The provison should not extend as far the new clause proposes. 2 pm
I do not want to take up much more time as I know that other hon. Members want to speak. I will conclude by referring to a point that was made about the French situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) rightly focused attention on France
Column 1317
and asked whether the French Government would allow the pharmaceutical industry to fail to compete with other European countries. Of course the French Government would not allow that. They would do all that they could to protect and encourage their industry and would bend every regulation that they could. The British Government and our laws should do likewise.The same can be said of the United States. The United States has a Freedom of Information Act and the free flow of information and open government are well advanced, which I entirely applaud, but the United States Government are never backward in coming forward when they deem it necessary to protect their own big industries against foreign competitors--and understandably so. We must keep that in our sights, because it is in the overwhelming interests of the British people, employees in the industry and the industry itself. Economic advantages flow from the industry successfully competing in the world, so we must advance under the Bill with the principal objective of making information as free as possible. I would not wish us to step down from that high objective, but we must realise that the pure principle must, to an extent, be limited by practice. We must, therefore, limit it by our best judgment of what is in the competitive interest of our pharmaceutical industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville) : I have listened with much interest and have given the Bill quite a lot of thought in the past months. I have reached a conclusion. With so much being done in Europe on the issue, it would be unhelpful for the United Kingdom to find itself with legal obligations in advance of decisions in Europe.
Ms Lynne rose --
Mr. Sackville : I shall press on ; we are fairly short of time. I believe that we would run a serious risk of putting the United Kingdom at a grave competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis other licensing authorities in Europe if we were to introduce legislation at this stage. This is not only the Government's view ; it is shared by the pharmaceutical industry, although I admit that the picture has been muddy at different times. The industry remains unhappy with the Bill and does not want legislation until the position in Europe has been clarified and until we all know what will have to be disclosed in the new centralised and decentralised procedures. That could take a great deal of time, and I shall explain the issue further.
The future systems, as they are known, will come into force about 18 months after a decision has been taken on the siting of the European medicines evaluation agency--the EMEA--which the Government are keen to see sited in the United Kingdom. The Commission believes that a decision on siting will be taken at the Heads of Government meeting in June in Copenhagen. If that occurs, the proposals will come into force on 1 January 1995. If not, the proposals will not come into force until a later date.
The proposals are currently before the European Parliament and provide for a new regulation and directives that will bind the EC together and provide for common procedures. The United Kingdom will be a signatory to those proposals, which will probably be adopted by the Council of Ministers towards the end of this year. The proposals envisage a centralised procedure--
Column 1318
Ms Lynne : Have the British Government been pressing for legislation in the European Parliament to introduce more open government in respect of medicinal information?
Mr. Sackville : Yes, and I shall deal with that issue later. The proposals envisage a centralised procedure for handling innovative and biotechnology products and a decentralised procedure for other products. The essential feature of the centralised procedure is that applications will be made centrally to the EMEA and information supplied by companies will be entrusted to the EMEA and the Commission which will make the decision on whether a licence should be granted.
When member states are asked by the EMEA to assess a company's dossier, they will do so on behalf of the EMEA. In that respect, member states will be handling data for the EMEA. The subsequent making available of that information would be for the Commission to determine. That contrasts sharply with the position of member states currently and in the new decentralised procedures where licensing information will continue to be exchanged but in which each member state will remain responsible for determining the degree of confidentiality to be afforded various pieces of information. At present, there is no agreement whatsoever among member states on what should be disclosed to the public in the decentralised procedures and only a vague reference to the making available of the
"assessment report and the reasons for the CPMP's opinion, after deletion of any information of a commercially confidential nature" in the centralised procedure.
There are still many details of the operation of the centralised procedure to be worked out, and that is likely to take the whole of the period between now and 1995.
Mr. Radice : Are the Government pressing for a more effective open system at the European level? I do not agree that the centralised procedure is vague. Are the Government pressing for a common open system in the decentralised licensing system?
Mr. Sackville : Yes, and I shall deal with that in a moment. Questions such as the layout, the amount of detail and the nature of the confidential information to be deleted have yet to be determined. Officials from the Medicines Control Agency and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate will, of course, play a full part in the discussions and will do so on the basis of two clear principles. The first is that the definition of confidential information must be sufficient to protect the commercial interests of the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry. The second, which is subject to the first, is that they must press our Community partners to agree arrangements that will make available the maximum amount of information in as clear and as lucid a form as possible. I think that that answers the interventions from the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Durham, North (Mr. Radice).
Those arrangements would apply only to licences issued by the Commission under the centralised procedure. Under the decentralised procedure, member states will remain responsible in accordance with their own national arrangements for issuing licences and for making information available. Subject to further consultation with all interested parties, it will be the Government's intention
Column 1319
to see how far national arrangements can be modelled on those agreed as suitable for the centralised procedure. We shall be urging other member states to do likewise.I hope the House can see, therefore, that if the United Kingdom jumped the gun and had a requirement in law to produce information with which the industry was not content, it would be reasonable to expect companies to go somewhere else first to market their products. Companies will look at what each member state is required by its laws to publish and at which would expose the least amount of their commercial interests. They would then take a commercial decision on where to place the application in the first instance, knowing that under the new decentralised procedures, that would be a passport to obtaining a similar licence from any other member state in which they chose to apply.
Mr. Radice : Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Sackville : I will press on because I do not want to be accused of talking out the Bill. Companies would choose first to obtain a licence from the member state offering the most safeguards. From the United Kingdom perspective, that would not only divert important licensing work from here, but would severely risk reducing the United Kingdom's influence on the high scientific standards that we are concerned should be applied to all licence applications in Europe. The Government want to be helpful. We propose, therefore, that we should take up the reins in Europe and drive the debate towards more openness. We should want to look at the practical issues involved before deciding what would be beneficial and what might be harmful, but I can assure the House that the Government will wish to be at the forefront of developments. Officials in the Medicines Control Agency and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate will pursue new initiatives in Europe. Not only will they initiate discussion leading to the disclosure of meaningful evaluation reports in the centralised procedure for which the Commission will be liable, but they will pursue with the other member states the possibilities for opening up more information to the public in the decentralised procedures without jeopardising legitimate commercial interests. In particular, they will consider the shape and content of an acceptable assessment report and will also consider how more information on adverse drug reactions can be made available in a meaningful way without raising unnecessary fears in the public. In doing so, we shall build on the Medicines Control Agency's most advanced system in Europe for reporting adverse reactions--ADROIT, the adverse drug reaction on-line information tracking system--and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's suspected adverse reactions surveillance scheme. On all those aspects, we shall want to discuss the details with industry and with consumer interests, taking account of what has happened in the United States and other parts of the world with freedom of information provisions about which there has been some discussion today.
I have mentioned our proposals for Europe, but, of course, we have not been inactive in the United Kingdom. In health as in other areas of government, we are working hard to improve public access to information. For the first time, the public now have the right to information about
Column 1320
the performance and plans of their local hospitals and health services, and to attend annual meetings with senior hospital managers. In our patients charter for the NHS, we have introduced a new right for patients to be given detailed information on local health services, including quality standards and maximum waiting times. For the first time, patients and their doctors have access to information that empowers them to decide where they can secure appropriate treatment most promptly. We have also created a new right for patients to receive prompt and full answers to complaints about NHS services. By increasing openess in this way, we shall maintain and build on the confidence of the public in the excellent service that the NHS provides.With medicines, as with other aspects of health, we are continuing to increase the amount of information available to the public. For example, the "British Pharmacopoeia", which gives very detailed information about the specification, safety and quality of medicinal products, has been available publicly for some years. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry publishes a compendium of data sheets. The Medicines Control Agency has been making available to doctors and pharmacists an increasing number of summaries of drug reaction data. Additionally, we have always been concerned that labels, leaflets and promotional material should be presented so that they are understandable and accurate, and do not mislead the public. That was our position even before the appearance of the recent EC directives on these issues.
2.14 pency three or four times a year in the publication "Current Problems". This is made available to doctors, dentists, coroners and a range of other interested parties, including "Social Audit"--one of the sponsors of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). That publication is in the public domain and there is no reason why members of the public should not see it. I hope that I have shown that our commitment to more openness in government is being matched by real increases in the availability of information about medicines to the public.
What is more, it is our intention to continue to increase the amount of publicly available information about medicines. We have begun to discuss with the pharmaceutical industry a new voluntary code of practice to increase the amount of information that they give the public. That approach is consistent with our determination to ensure that companies in the United Kingdom are not weighed down by too many regulations and can compete on equal terms with foreign companies. Nevertheless, the House should rest assured that, where public safety is at risk, we will not rely on a voluntary code but will use our existing powers to inform the public of the dangers.
Mr. McCartney : The Minister suggested some months ago that he would give the Bill a fair wind. In Committee, however, and today especially, it has been wrecked on rocks put in its way by Conservative Back Benchers. Conservative Members have tabled spurious amendments and mounted spurious campaigns. Behind the scenes, they have deliberately tried to block measures to promote the
Column 1321
Bill. We have witnessed scurrilous attempts by the industry and its supporters in the House to undermine a Bill which would allow doctors and patients information that is available to doctors and patients in other nations--information about the safety of medicines, practical information about the way in which prescribing relates to specific patients and information relating to the efficacy of particular drugs.Is it not interesting to reflect that if this debate were taking place in the United States, the Minister and his civil servants could give information about drugs that were produced in this country without being prosecuted, whereas in this country it is a criminal offence for a civil servant, a Minister or an hon. Member to place the same information in the public domain?
We have heard nothing about the victims. There has been no word about the consumer--the patient. We have received plenty of information about the interests of big business and the big pharmaceutical companies, which want to ensure that the British public are kept in the dark about some of their products. That same industry hypocritically--
Lady Olga Maitland : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McCartney : I will give way to the hon. Lady at some point.
Mr. Waterson : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McCartney : No. I will not.
Mr. Waterson : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On mature reflection, I think that my remarks are more appropriate to a point of order than to an intervention. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has used the word "spurious" and the word "scurrilous", both in connection with a proposal that I tabled in the best possible faith, and I believe that he should be required to withdraw. As I have explained, I have no particular axe to grind ; I merely want the legislation to be done properly. That is my only interest in giving up a Friday in my delightful constituency.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The House will have heard what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said, but I am afraid that the words that have been used so far are parliamentary words.
Mr. McCartney : We have parliamentary words that can be used to protect our constituents from the scurrilous and scandalous activities surrounding the progress of this Bill and other Bills through the House.
It is interesting to note the companies that are involved in trying to ensure that the Bill does not reach the statute book : Glaxo ; Boots ; the company of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), Pfizer ; ICI ; Wellcome ; Ciba Geigy--
Mr. Couchman : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is true that I advise Pfizer and it is true that I have discussed the Bill with that company. But not one word of written information has come from it to brief me, nor has one word in any of the amendments that I have tabled in Committee or on Report come from it. I take the most extreme exception to the imputation that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) makes. It is quite wrong and he should withdraw what he has just said.
Column 1322
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman has placed his position on the record. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) referred to the hon. Gentleman's company. I imagine that that was a slip of the tongue.
Mr. McCartney : It was not a slip of the tongue. It was a reference to the Register of Members' Interests. I have no problems with what I said. The hon. Gentleman obviously has a problem to explain to his constituents.
The position is that Ciba Geigy, Smith Kline Beecham, Boots Pharmaceuticals, Fisons Pharmaceuticals, Lilley Research, the Government's own Medicines Control Agency and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are using legislation in the United States to seek information, but that information is being denied to the public today.
Why should that happen? Why have not the hon. Member for Gillingham and those who support his views said anything about the victims? More than 100 medicines have had their licences withdrawn or suspended since 1979. They include Opren, which was withdrawn in 1982, and the tranquilliser Halcion, which it seems some people are trying to get back on to the market. However, nothing has been said about the victims of those drugs. There has been no explanation or apology. In the face of that, hon. Members are trying to ensure that the Bill does not reach the statute book today. The Bill would, for the first time, put people in Britain, doctors and the industry on the same footing as people in the United States. Why is the British industry and its colleagues overseas so opposed to this minimal measure? Why should the industry undermine its own credibility by ensuring that the Bill does not reach the statute book today? The Minister said that there will be measures in Europe. However, as usual with this Government, the Minister used that information not as a positive attempt to support the Bill, but as a negative reason to oppose it. The Minister was right to say that there will be a system of centralisation in Europe. However, that will be a two-tier system--centralised and decentralised. The Bill is about the decentralised part of the system.
If we are to accept the centralised part, as the Minister indicated, it is our responsibility to pass the Bill. It would be the basis for a decentralised system under the centralised arrangements which the Minister has already said that he supports. From his own mouth, the Minister has condemned his own position.
The reason for that is clear and simple. On the Conservative Back Benches there is the naked interest of the pharmaceutical companies. On the Front Bench there is a Minister who is prepared to talk tough about the way in which drug companies are ripping us off in the national health service in respect of contract prices. The Government talk tough and they do tough things to patients. They would rather increase prescription charges and deny information to patients than have an adequate arrangement about the way in which drugs are charged in relation to the national health service.
This is a clear and simple naked trade-off between the Department and the industry. The Minister will go easy on the Bill in the hope that, in the negotiations over contract prices, the drugs industry will go easy in terms of the profits that it wants to make from the national health service. That is the plain fact of the matter.
| Next Section
| Home Page |